The National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Shashi Goel; The National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Geeta Devi

“7. Can it be said that the Insurance Company would be able to avoid liability if the vehicle is not kept clean or the driver is not wearing the uniform? It is not each and every condition of permit contravention of which would allow the Insurance Company to avoid the liability. On the other hand, a close reading of the Clause (c) to Section 149 (2) (i) (a) would show that it is only the user of the transport vehicle for the purpose not allowed by the permit would enable the Insurance Company to defend the action to satisfy an award in a motor accident where the risk is covered by a policy obtained under Section 147 of the Act. 8. The interpretation of contravention of condition of permit envisaged under Section 66 of the Act and the contravention of condition of permit with respect to the purpose for which the vehicle may be used came up for

consideration before the Supreme Court in State of Maharastra and Ors. v. Nanded-Parebhani Z.L.B.M.V. Operator Sangh (2000) 2 SCC 69 albeit in a different context. In the said case, the police had seized certain vehicles for carrying passengers in excess of the numbers permitted by the condition of permit issued by the Transport Authority. The action was challenged by the Association of Transporters by virtue of a writ petition before the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court. The High Court analyzed the different provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules framed thereunder and on consideration of the same came to the conclusion that it is not each and every violation of the condition of the permit which would authorize the seizure and detention of the vehicle under Section 207 (1) of the Act. It was held that it was only when the condition of permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle was used, is violated, the vehicle could be seized by the Authorities. The Appeal filed by the State of Maharastra was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The contention raised on behalf of the State of Maharastra that carrying passengers more than prescribed by the permit could be construed to be violation, was rejected. The Supreme Court relied upon the report in Kanailal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhu Khan (1958) 1 SCR 360 and held as under:- "If the words used are capable of one construction only then it would not be open to the Courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act". The intention of the legislature is required to be gathered from the language used and, therefore, a construction, which requires for its support with additional substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. Bearing in mind, the aforesaid principles of construction of statute and on examining the provisions of Section 207 of the Act, which has been quoted earlier, we have no doubt in our mind that the police officer would be authorised to detain a vehicle, if he has reason to believe that the vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or without the permit required under Sub-section (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used. In the case in hand, we are not concerned with the contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 or Section 39 or Sub-section (1) of Section 66 and we are only concerned with the question of contravention of the condition of permit. Reading the provisions as it is, the conclusion is irresistible that the condition of permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle could be used if contravened, would only authorise the police officer to detain the vehicle and not each and every condition of permit on being violated or contravened, the police officer would be entitled to detain the vehicle. According to the learned Counsel, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, the expression "purpose for which the vehicle may be used" could be construed to mean that when the vehicle Is found to be carrying passengers more than the number prescribed in the permit, the purpose of user is otherwise. We are unable to accede to this contention as in our opinion, the purpose would only refer to a contingency when a vehicle having a permit of stage carriage is used as a contract carriage or vice versa or where a vehicle having a permit for stage carriage or contract carriage is used as a goods vehicle and vice versa. But carrying passengers more than the number specified in the permit will not be a violation of the purpose for which the permit is granted. If the legislature really wanted to confer power of detention on the police officer for violation of any condition of the permit, then there would not have been the necessity of adding the expression "relating to the route on which or the area In which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used". The user of the aforesaid expression cannot be ignored nor can it be said to be a tautology. We have also seen the Form of permit (From P.Co. T.), meant in respect of a tourist vehicle, which is issued under Rule 72(1)(ix) and Rule 74(6) of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. On seeing the different columns, we are unable to accede to the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra, that carrying passengers beyond the number mentioned in Column 5, indicating the seating capacity, would be a violation of the conditions of permit relating to either the route or the area or the purpose for which the permit is granted. In this view of the matter, we see no infirmity with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court in the impugned judgment and the detention of the vehicles has rightly been held to be unauthorised and consequently, the compensation awarded cannot be said to be without jurisdiction………”