JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Having heard the rival contentions, it transpires that the offending vehicle U.P.-07J-8001 fell in the deep gorge in the night of 28.3.2005 at Haripur Quanu Motor Marg. The deceased Parmu was travelling in the said vehicle and on account of the injuries, which he got due to the accident, he died at the spot. When his wife and dependents moved the application seeking compensation from the insurance company, the same was denied on the basis that the route permit was not valid at the time of accident. So, the MACT Case No. 69/2005 was launched against the appellant Devender Kumar, the owner of the vehicle, as well as against the insurance company. The same was decreed on 31.7.2008 accepting the claim of compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,13,000/- against the owner of the motor vehicle. However, the insurance company was directed to pay the amount instantly to the claimants and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Insurance company paid the amount and started the recovery of the same from the vehicle owner. Hence, this appeal has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle. 2. It has been argued that the vehicle, in question, was a utility vehicle, and as per Section 66(3)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, there was no necessity of having the permit for such vehicle if its gross weight does not exceed 3000 kilograms. In the registration certificate, issued by the competent officer, the unloaded weight of this offending vehicle was 1690 kilograms and the total weight including the goods and all passengers could be extended up to 2750 kilograms. It could carry five passengers excluding the driver. 3. Per contra, it has been argued by the learned Counsel of the insurance company that even if this vehicle was used for transporting the passengers casually, then also permit was needed. 4. I am not concerned instantly whether the vehicle in question was being used for transporting the passengers on payment of fare from them, because nothing has been proved on the record to the effect that the deceased was travelling as a passenger after paying the fare to the driver. 5. It is the settled legal position that the offending vehicle, being a utility one, could carry the weight of 2750 kilograms including five passengers and one driver. 5. It is the settled legal position that the offending vehicle, being a utility one, could carry the weight of 2750 kilograms including five passengers and one driver. There was no need for having the route permit for such vehicle. Vehicle was comprehensively insured with the insurance company at the time of accident and the driver, who also lost his life in this accident, was having the valid licence as has been available on the record. 6. Hence, in the given facts and circumstances, stated above, the appeal is hereby allowed. The liability, which has been fastened on the owner of the vehicle i.e. the appellant Devender Kumar to compensate the legal heirs of the deceased, is extinguished. 7. Let the lower court record be sent back.