Shimla, 2 September 2026: A Single Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh decided an insurer's appeal in FAO (MV) No. 67 of 2017, arising from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Chamba Division.
The appeal was filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), against an award dated 21 October 2016, passed in Claim Petition No. 57/2013, which had been filed under Section 166 of the MV Act. The Tribunal had held the petitioners entitled to compensation of Rs. 8,08,200 with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition until realisation, and had directed the insurer to indemnify the award. The matter was reserved on 10 August 2026, and decided on 2 September 2026 by Justice Sushil Kukreja.
According to the judgment, the claim arose from an accident on 11 November 2013, in which a Tata Sumo, driven by a driver since deceased, went off the road at Kowaji Mor near Shour and rolled into a gorge. The petitioners alleged that a 24-year-old passenger died on the spot owing to rash and negligent driving, and sought compensation of Rs. 15,00,000. The vehicle's owner admitted ownership and stated that the vehicle was insured with the appellant.
Before the High Court, the appellant contended that the vehicle had neither a valid fitness certificate nor a route permit at the time of the accident, so that the terms and conditions of the policy stood violated. Counsel for the respondents supported the award. The Court noted that the vehicle was admittedly a transport vehicle. A Data Operator from the RTO, Kullu, examined by the insurer, deposed that the vehicle was registered as a commercial maxi cab, that its fitness was valid till 6 July 2005, and that its contract carriage permit was valid from 8 August 2003 to 7 August 2008.
Referring to Sections 39, 56 and 66 of the MV Act, the Court recorded that the owner had neither pleaded nor proved the exceptions carved out under Section 66. Relying on Challa Bharathamma and Amrit Paul Singh, it held that plying a transport vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. With reference to the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in Pareed Pillai, it further held that a transport vehicle without a valid fitness certificate is to be treated as an unregistered motor vehicle. The Court held that the vehicle was plied without permit and fitness certificate, that the policy conditions were violated, and that the Tribunal had erroneously fastened liability on the insurer.
Citing Amrit Paul Singh and Shamanna, the Court directed that the insurer shall pay the compensation to the petitioners, with liberty to recover it from the owner. The appeal was partly allowed and the award modified to the extent that the owner is liable to pay the compensation, which is to be paid first by the insurer, who may recover it from the owner in accordance with law. The remaining terms of the award, including interest, remain unchanged. The appeal was disposed of along with pending applications, if any. The judgment records no further listing.
Source:
Case Name: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jamana & Ors.
Case Number: FAO (MV) No. 67 of 2017 (Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:37353)
Bench: Justice Sushil Kukreja, High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla
Date: 2 September 2026