JUDGMENT 1. These two appeals i.e. M.A. No.1880/2021 and M.A. No.1881/2021 have been filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved of award dtd. 12/12/2019 passed in Claim Case Nos.805/2016 and 804/2016 respectively on the ground that offending vehicle bearing registration No.M.P.-50-L-0135 owned by Chief Municipal Officerr, Municipal Office, Malajkhand and used as fire brigade was not having fitness on the date of accident which took place on 27/12/2015. 2. The only question which has been raised in these appeals is that whether in absence of a fitness though it is admitted that the said vehicle was having valid permit to ply, Insurance Company should have been exonerated or not. 3. Shri Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, has placed reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment of Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in the case of Pareed Pillai Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2018 SCC Online Ker 3543 to suggest that in absence of fitness and permit vehicle was not permitted to ply on public road. 4. Shri Shukla has also drawn attention of this Court to Sec. 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides for cancellation and suspension of permit under certain exigencies and submits that in absence of a valid fitness, permit will deem to have been cancelled, therefore, Insurance Company should have been exonerated. 5. Shri Abhishek Singh and Ms. C. Veda Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, in their turn, submits that the judgment in the case of Pareed Pillai (supra) is distinguishable on its facts. 6. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was used by CMO, Nagar Palika as fire brigade. 7. Sec. 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with control of transport vehicles. It provides for necessity for permits. It is further submitted that sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 66 in clause-(c) makes an exception to the necessity of having permit inasmuch as any transport vehicle used solely for Police, Fire Brigade or Ambulance purposes is exempted. This distinguishes the law laid down by Constitution Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of Pareed Pillai (supra). Even otherwise provisions contained in Sec. 86 do not come into operation automatically. There is a proviso below Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 86 providing that no permit can be suspended or cancelled unless an opportunity has been given to the holder of the permit to furnish his explanation. 8. Even otherwise provisions contained in Sec. 86 do not come into operation automatically. There is a proviso below Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 86 providing that no permit can be suspended or cancelled unless an opportunity has been given to the holder of the permit to furnish his explanation. 8. In the present case, admittedly, till the accident took place, permit was not cancelled and even otherwise permit is not mandatory for a fire brigade as is apparent from clause-(c) of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 66 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and once it is held that permit is not mandatory, then the issue of fitness on which permit depends, becomes secondary. Even there is no condition in the insurance policy laying down that absence of fitness will be a ground to repudiate the policy. Therefore, when these facts are cumulatively taken into consideration, then appeals are, admittedly, devoid of merit inasmuch as there is an exception in clause-(c) of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 66 of Motor Vehicles Act and so also in light of the judgment of the Indore Bench of this Court in the case of Oriengal Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manoj and others, 2013 SCC Online MP 10886. 9. Accordingly, both these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.