Complainant-Petitioner has filed this Revision Petition against the judgement and order dated 25th September, 2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, State Commission), Bihar in Appeal No.257/2000 whereby and whereunder State Commission has set aside the order dated 25.2.2000/3.3.2000 passed in Complaint No.150/95 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forma (for short, District Forum), Bhojpur (Ara) on the ground that the accident occurred at a place for which the Petitioner did not have the permit to ply the vehicle. Facts: Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum, stating, inter alia that he had purchased a Tata 407 Maxy Taxi bearing No.BR3/6233 and got it insured with the Respondent-Opposite Party – New India Assurance Co. for the period 27.6.94 to 26.6.95. On 13.9.94 the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident about which Police Station concerned as well as the Respondent were informed. The Respondent deputed a surveyor who inspected the vehicle and directed the Petitioner to get vehicle repaired. The Complainant got the vehicle repaired at a total cost of Rs.1,04,595/- After the repair, surveyor again inspected the vehicle and submitted a report to Respondent. Complainant deposited cash memos of the expenses incurred in the repair of the vehicle, with the Respondent. When the complaint was not settled by the Respondent for a long time, correspondence was made by Petitioner through various sources but the matter could not improve. On 21.8.95 Petitioner received a letter from the Respondent informing that the competent authority had repudiated the entire claim of the Petitioner on the ground that driver of the vehicle had no badge. Petitioner approached Licensing Authority who informed Petitioner that there was no supply of badge for the last four-five years. On a fresh application filed by the Petitioner, the Licensing Authority granted badge No.7 of 95-96. Petitioner produced the badge before the Respondent but even then no payment was made. Petitioner being aggrieved filed the complaint before the District Forum claiming a sum of Rs.1,04,595.90 together with interest @ 18% per annum an compensation. On being served, Respondent put in appearance and contested the complaint and inter alia taking the stand that the case of the Petitioner is a own damage and as such it was not maintainable. That the accident took place near Nanhar Thana District – Gazipur (U.P) and, therefore, the District Forum did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. That the driver of the vehicle did not have any badge and as such the claim could not be allowed. District Forum rejected the objections raised by the Respondents and concluded that mere non-issuance of badge would not defeat the claim of the Petitioner. Objection regarding territorial jurisdiction was also rejected on the ground that Insurance Company had a branch office at Gazipur and therefore, complaint was maintainable at District Forum, Bhojpur. Counsel for the Respondent raised another objection that accident took place beyond the territory indicated in the permit of the vehicle. That according to the relevant Rules framed, vehicle could not be plied beyond the territory mentioned in the permit. This objection was also overruled by the District Forum holding that the vehicle had been moved beyond territory for which it had the permit in a special contingency to carry the dead body to a particular burning ghat. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed Respondent-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.1,04,595.90 along with interest @ 6% per annum to Petitioner. Rs.1000/- was also awarded by way of compensation and costs. Respondent-Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum filed Appeal before the State Commission. State Commission endorsed the finding of the District Forum regarding territorial jurisdiction as well as ‘no badge no claim’. But reversed the finding recorded by the District Forum on the third point on the ground that the vehicle was being plied in violation of condition of License beyond the territorial limit of the permit of the vehicle, where the accident had taken place. Counsel for the Petitioner has been heard at length. Neither the counsel nor the representative of the Respondent is present in spite of being informed. Respondent is ordered to be proceeded ex-parte. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 no owner of a motor vehicle can use or permit the use of a vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by the State Transport Authority or any prescribed Authority authorizing him the use of the vehicle in the manner in which the vehicle is being used. Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follow: “66. Necessity for permits.- (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorizing him to use the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used: Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorize the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage: Provided further that a stage carriage permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorize the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage either when carrying passengers or not: Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorize the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him.” Sub Section (3) of Section 66 provides that provisions of sub section (1) shall not apply – “(a)………………… (b)……………….. (c) ……………….. (d) to any transport vehicle used solely for the conveyance of corpses and the mourners accompanying the corpses.” It is not disputed before us that the vehicle was carrying dead body to a particular burning ghat. According to the provisions of law normally a transport vehicle can be plied within the area for which it had been given the permit. The vehicle can be plied beyond the limit prescribed either by taking permission of the appropriate authority or under any of the exceptions carved out by sub section (3) of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . One of the exceptions caved out under clause (d) of sub section (3) of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is that the transport vehicle can be used beyond the permitted limits of the permit solely for the use of conveyance of corpses and mourners accompanying corpse. In the present case the vehicle was plied beyond the permitted area in a special contingency to carry dead body to a particular burning ghat which was permissible in law. The State Commission has clearly erred in holding that the vehicle was being plied in violation of the law. The finding recorded by the State Commission which is contrary to the provisions of Section 66 (3)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. For the reasons stated above, the Order passed by the State Commission cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The Order of the District Forum is restored. The Revision Petition is allowed with costs which is quantified at Rs.5,000/-. | 
