CM-31-CII-2026

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 5 days in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 5 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

FAO-4-2026 (O&M)

3. The owner of one of the offending vehicles, namely the bus involved in a motor vehicular accident, has approached this Court by way of the present appeal challenging the award dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat.

4. A perusal of the record reveals that on 14.06.2019, Sumit along with Vikas (since deceased) and Mahipal were travelling in pick-up vehicle bearing registration No. HR-58A-6552. They had gone to Ladwa, District Kurukshetra, for loading tomatoes and were returning to Sonepat at about 8.30 PM. Vikas was driving the pick-up vehicle. When they were descending from the flyover ahead of the toll plaza at Panipat, bus bearing registration No. UK-07PA-2383 came from the opposite side. The bus crossed over the central divider and collided with the pick-up vehicle, resulting in serious injuries to the occupants. Vikas succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident.

5. On the statement of Sumit, an FIR was registered at Police Station Sector 13/17, Panipat. During the course of investigation, it emerged that the bus was stationary on the road and that a canter bearing registration No. HR-69C-8254 had hit the bus from behind, as a consequence of which the bus crossed the divider and struck the pick-up vehicle.

6. The widow, minor children and widowed mother of the deceased-Vikas filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, impleading the drivers, owners and insurers of both the vehicles, i.e. the bus as well as the canter.

7. Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, the learned Tribunal returned a finding that the accident was the result of composite negligence of the drivers of both the offending vehicles. The Tribunal found that although the bus had developed a mechanical fault due to overheating, there was no evidence to show that the driver of the bus had taken any safety precautions while parking the vehicle on the road. No warning signs, reflectors or other preventive measures were proved to have been taken to alert other road useRs. The negligence of the bus driver was thus clearly established. Simultaneously, the driver of the canter was also found negligent, as he failed to notice the stationary bus and was driving at such a speed that the impact was severe enough to push the bus across the divider and hit into the pick-up vehicle. These findings on negligence have not been shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence.

8. The learned Tribunal thereafter assessed the compensation payable to the legal representatives of the deceased and awarded a total sum of Rs.42,22,000/-. Though both the offending vehicles were insured and their drivers were holding valid driving licences, the Tribunal found that neither vehicle was operating under a valid permit. Consequently, while directing the respective insurance companies to satisfy the award in the ratio of 50:50, liberty was granted to them to recover the amount from the respective owners on the principle of “pay and recover”.

9. Assailing the award, learned counsel for the appellant-owner of the offending bus has raised two submissions. First, it is contended that in view of Section 66(3)(p) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the bus was exempted from holding a permit, as it had developed a mechanical fault. Second, it is argued that the income of the deceased has been assessed on the higher side.

10. This Court finds no merit in either of the submissions.

11. So far as the first contention is concerned, learned counsel fairly concedes that the bus was not holding a valid permit at the relevant time. Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act mandates that no transport vehicle shall be used without a permit. The exemptions carved out under Section 66(3) are specific and must be strictly construed. Clause (p) thereof exempts a transport vehicle only when it is proceeding empty to any place for the purpose of repair.

12. In the present case, the plea of exemption under Section 66(3)(p) is wholly misconceived. A perusal of the pleadings and evidence reveals that the stand taken by the owner / driver of the bus before the Tribunal was merely that the bus had developed a technical fault due to overheating and was parked on the road, and that the driver had gone to fetch water to cool the engine. There is neither any pleading nor any evidence to suggest that the bus was proceeding to a workshop or any other place for repair. Mere development of a mechanical fault or temporary parking on the road does not attract the exemption under Section 66(3)(p). In the absence of foundational pleadings and proof, the appellant cannot seek the benefit of a statutory exemption. The Tribunal was, therefore, fully justified in holding that the bus was being plied without a permit and in granting recovery rights to the insurer.

13. The second submission regarding assessment of income is equally devoid of merit. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on a notional basis at Rs.20,000/- per month. The record shows that the claimants had produced the Income Tax Return of the deceased for the Assessment Year 2018-2019 (Ex.P-23), which reflected an annual income of Rs.3,66,310/-, comprising income from trading in fruits and vegetables and other minor income. Despite the said documentary evidence being on record, the Tribunal has taken a conservative view and assessed the monthly income at Rs.20,000/-.

14. The contention of the appellant that the income shown in the Income Tax Return was exaggerated is unsupported by any rebuttal evidence. Once an Income Tax Return is produced and proved, and no material is brought on record to discredit it, the Tribunal is justified in placing reliance upon the same. In fact, this Court finds that the Tribunal has erred, if at all, in assessing the income on the lower side despite the Income Tax Return indicating a higher annual income. However, since the claimants are not before this court for seeking enhancement, this Court is not examining that aspect.

15. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles of law. No perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error has been pointed out warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction.

16. Accordingly, the present appeal is found to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.