Judgment :- P. Shanmugam, J. The State of Kerala and the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector who are the respondents in the claim petition have filed separate appeals. On 12.7.1985 at about 12.45 p.m. the lorry bearing registration No. KLO - 2519 was driven by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector for a test driving and in that course the lorry dashed against the deceased Muhammed Kunju Haneefa and he died consequent on the injuries. The legal representatives of the deceased filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs. The Tribunal after considering the matter awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,53,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum against the 1st and 3rd respondents who are the appellants herein. The appeals are against this award. 2. The main contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the vehicle was brought to the R.T.O. 's office for the benefit of the owner for issuing a certificate of fitness and, therefore, the owner should be held liable and that the vehicle having been insured with the 10th respondent herein, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the liability. The learned Government Pleader argued that the finding of the Tribunal that the vehicle was driven by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector for the purpose of speed testing is erroneous. He further submitted that the compensation Rs. 1,53,000/ -cannot be sustained. 3. The only question that would arise for consideration is whether the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector who has driven the vehicle for the purpose of testing, can be held liable to pay compensation for the accident. It is an admitted case that the vehicle was brought for the purpose of renewal of the permit. When the motor vehicle is brought for renewal of permit, the transport authorities have to inspect the vehicle and issue the necessary certificate. The relevant provision dealing with the renewal is S.58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which requires the renewal of a permit. S.32 of the Act provides that no motor vehicle shall be driven without a valid registration. For the purpose of valid registration, the vehicle requires a certificate of fitness under S.38 of the Act. The procedure of issuing certificate of fitness is contained in R.134 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. S.32 of the Act provides that no motor vehicle shall be driven without a valid registration. For the purpose of valid registration, the vehicle requires a certificate of fitness under S.38 of the Act. The procedure of issuing certificate of fitness is contained in R.134 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. The relevant provision for that purpose is sub-clause (3) of R.134, which is extracted below: "Standard of Inspection - Before the issue or renewal of a certificate of fitness, the Inspecting au thority or the Registering authority shall conduct a thorough inspection of all parts of the vehicle to ensure that they are in sound and satisfactory condition, and the vehicle in general complies with the requirements of Chapter VI of these Rules". From this provision, it is clear that before issuing a certificate of fitness which enables a vehicle owner to use the vehicle in public place, the inspecting authority has to conduct a through inspection of all parts of the vehicle to satisfy the sound conditions of the vehicle. Therefore, the said inspection and the driving of the vehicle for the purpose cannot be characterised as a speed test or test driving. As a matter of fact, S.120 of the Act imposes a ban of test drive or speed test without written permission of the State Government. In our view, the Tribunal has went wrong in characterising the inspection of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector as reliability trials. 4. Limitation as to A5 policy condition is against the use for organised racing, pace-making and reliability trial or speeding test. The function of the Motor Vehicles Inspector and the present test of the vehicle for the renewal of its permit cannot be racing trial or speeding test. The vehicle was brought to the R.T.O.'s office for the benefit of the owner to get the certificate which would necessarily involve the testing of a different kind than prohibited. Therefore, the policy covers the accident. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company that the limitation, of the use would operate against the claim, cannot be accepted. In our view, the insurance company is liable to compensate the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- which is covered under the policy. The award of Rs. 1,53,000/- against the appellants cannot be sustained. In our view, the insurance company is liable to compensate the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- which is covered under the policy. The award of Rs. 1,53,000/- against the appellants cannot be sustained. While holding that the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to claim the amount of compensation against the owner and the insurance company, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, their claim is restricted, to Rs. 1,50,000/- with 12% interest as fixed by the Tribunal. Appeals are allowed to the above extent.