JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainant/respondent owned a vehicle bearing registration no. HR-38M-3476, which he had got insured with the petitioner company. The aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 27.12.2009 and sustained damages. A claim in terms of the insurance policy was lodged by the complainant with the petitioner company. The claim however, was closed vide letter dated 21.04.2010 which to the extent it is relevant reads as under: With reference to above referred claim, this is to inform you that we have observed from FIR Number 540 dated 27/12/2009 that insured vehicle was set on fire at Rajasthan whereas vehicle was holding permit for Haryana only. We have sent letter addressed to you on dated 22nd March, 2010 and reminder on 3rd April, 2010, but you have neither replied nor submitted permit to surveyor/us. 2. Being aggrieved from the non-payment of the claim, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner company primarily on the ground that the vehicle was being plied in Rajasthan at the time it met with an accident, though the permit issued in respect to the vehicle permitted it to be plied only in the State of Haryana. 3. The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainant, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 21.11.2016, the petitioner is before this Commission by wayo f this revision petition. 4. The only disputed question involved in this case is as to whether the vehicle was being plied in Haryana or it was being plied in Rajasthan at the time it met with an accident. I have perused the FIR lodged by Sh. Balbir Singh, driver of the vehicle with Police Station Bhiwadi in District Alwar of Rajasthan on 27.12.2009. He clearly stated in the FIR lodged by him that on 27.12.2009, he was going towards Chowpanki in vehicle no. HR-38-M-3476. He further stated that when he reached Bhiwadi, near Relaxo Chowk, at about 07:30 pm, about 20-25 persons intercepted his vehicle and started beating him and set the vehicle on fire. It is thus, quite evident from the FIR which was lodged in a Police Station Rajasthan, that the vehicle was being plied in Bhiwadi (which is in Rajasthan), near Relaxo Chowk, at the time it was intercepted and was set on fire. In view of the FIR lodged by the driver, there is no scope for contending that the vehicle was being plied in Haryana and not in Rajasthan when it met with an accident and was set on fire. The learned counsel for the complainant states that in fact the vehicle was still in Haryana when 20-25 persons forcibly took the vehicle to Rajasthan and set it on fire. The above referred statement however, runs contrary to the FIR lodged by Sh. Balbir Singh, driver of the vehicle, who clearly stated that the vehicle was being plied in Bhiwadi (which falls in Rajasthan) at the time it was stopped by 20-25 persons and was later set on fire. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the vehicle was being plied in Rajasthan and not in Haryana, at the time it was intercepted and set on fire. 5. It is not in dispute that the complainant possessed a permit to ply the vehicle only in Haryana and did not have permission to ply the vehicle in Rajasthan. Therefore, the vehicle was being plied in Rajasthan in contravention of the condition of the permit which required it to be plied only in the State of Haryana. 6. Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act inter-alia provides that 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 authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used. Therefore, it is evident that the vehicle could not have been driven in Rajasthan and taking the vehicle to Rajasthan was in contravention of the provisions contained in Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. Section 158 of the Motor Vehicles Act requires any person to produce, inter-alia in the case of a transport vehicle, the permit relating to use of the vehicle. Since the vehicle did not have a permit for being plied in Rajasthan, the person driving the vehicle committed violation of Section 158 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 8. The insurance policy in this case was issued under Chapter X & XI of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 158 of the Motor Vehicles Act falls in Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act. 9. The learned counsel for the complainant relies upon Section 66(3)(m) of the Motor Vehicles Act which provides that the provisions of Sub-Section (1) shall not apply to any transport vehicle which, owing to flood, earthquake or any other natural calamity, obstruction on road, or unforeseen circumstances, is required to be diverted through any other route, whether within or outside the State, with a view to enabling it to reach its destination. However, the aforesaid provision is clearly inapplicable in this case since the FIR does not indicate that the driver of the vehicle was diverted through Rajasthan with a view to enable him to reach his destination in Haryana. The FIR indicates that the driver was plying the vehicle of his own in Bhiwadi which falls in Rajasthan when the vehicle was intercepted and was later burnt. 10. The learned counsel or the complainant relies upon the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajender Giri and Others 2011 Law Suit (P&H) 2502. In the above referred case, Rajender, the claimant had suffered injuries in a road side accident and the insurer had taken a plea that the vehicle was being plied without permit to ply the same in State of Haryana. The contention however, was not accepted by the High Court on the ground that the transport authority of Rajasthan had found the vehicle fit for being plied as goods carriage and such a violation of the condition of the insurance policy would not give the insurer a defense u/s 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. This judgment however, would not be applicable in the present case since this is not a case of third party insurance. If the driver of a vehicle causes injury to a third party, the insurer cannot, in law, take the defense that the vehicle was being plied in contravention of the conditions of the insurance policy with respect to the permit. On the other hand, such a defense would always be available to the insurer where the insured himself commits breach of the terms of the policy and contravenes the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act by driving the vehicle contrary to the terms and conditions of the permit obtained by him. 11. The learned counsel for the complainant also relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2010) 4 SCC 536. In Amalendu Sahoo (supra), the vehicle in question was registered as a private vehicle but was being used as a taxi on hire. Therefore, that was not a case of a vehicle being driven in another State in contravention of the permit granted to the vehicle. Therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo (supra) in my view opinion, would not be applicable. 12. The learned counsel for the complainant also relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2015) 2SCC 186 where the driver was driving a light goods vehicle, despite having a license issued in respect of a light motor vehicle. The aforesaid decision also would not apply to a case where the insured himself commits breach of the terms of the permit by plying the vehicle in a State where he is not permitted to ply the vehicle. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are set aside. The complaint is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs. | 
