JUDGMENT : SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. This appeal has been filed by respondents 1 & 2, who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, in OP(MV) No.1537 of 2006 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. The respondents 1 & 2 herein were the claimant and the insurer respectively before the tribunal. 2. The case of the claimant was that on 03.05.2006, while he was riding a scooter bearing Reg.No.KL-03/M 864, a scorpio car bearing Reg.No.KL-04/V 905 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the scooter, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ?1,10,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle respectively, filed a written statement denying negligence and contending that the petition is not maintainable. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. PW1 and RW1 were examined and Exts.A1 to A12 & B1 to B6 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ?36,500/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer. However, the tribunal granted a right of recovery to the insurer against the second respondent/owner, finding that the offending vehicle did not have a valid permit. Challenging this, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle have come up in appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the vehicle was purchased on 12.04.2006 and the accident occurred on 03.05.2006 and on that day, the vehicle was having only a cover note, which was valid from 13.04.2006 to 12.05.2006. It is further submitted that the first appellant/owner applied for a permit on 20.04.2006 and Ext.B5 permit was issued on 09.05.2006. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the vehicle was purchased on 12.04.2006 and the accident occurred on 03.05.2006 and on that day, the vehicle was having only a cover note, which was valid from 13.04.2006 to 12.05.2006. It is further submitted that the first appellant/owner applied for a permit on 20.04.2006 and Ext.B5 permit was issued on 09.05.2006. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that though the vehicle was registered as a motorcab at the time of the accident, it was not used as a vehicle for hire or reward. According to the learned counsel, the vehicle was returning after dropping back the brother and his wife of the first appellant/owner of the vehicle at Varkala after conducting a “pooja” for the vehicle; and other than the driver, there was nobody in the vehicle at the time of the accident and it was not being used as a “taxi”. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that as per Section 149 (2)(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”), it is the duty cast upon the insurer to prove that the vehicle was used as a “taxi”. In order to substantiate the said contention, she relied on the judgment of the apex court in Kamala Mangalal Vayani and Others v. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others [ 2010 ACJ 1441 ] and also the deposition of RW1, who specifically testified that the vehicle was not used for hire or reward, but was returning after taking the vehicle for a “pooja”. The learned counsel for the appellants further argued that since the insurer did not adduce any evidence to prove that the vehicle was used as “taxi” at the time of the accident, they are liable to pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal and hence, the finding of the tribunal granting right to recover the said amount from the owner is erroneous. 6. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the insurer submitted that the vehicle was admittedly registered as a motor cab and hence, the issue of “use of the vehicle for hire or reward” under Section 149 (2)(1) of Act does not arise in this case. The learned Senior Standing Counsel further submitted that the vehicle does not come under the exempted category as enumerated in Section 66 of the Act. The learned Senior Standing Counsel further submitted that the vehicle does not come under the exempted category as enumerated in Section 66 of the Act. According to the learned Standing Counsel, since the vehicle was a motor cab, in order to ply the vehicle on a public road, it is mandatory that the vehicle should have a valid permit and without there being a valid permit, it amounts to fundamental breach of policy conditions, and the insurer cannot be held liable to pay the compensation for the injuries sustained on account of the accident, and hence, the tribunal rightly granted the right to recover the said amount from the owner. To substantiate the above contentions, the learned Standing Counsel relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Pareed Pillai v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2018 (5) KHC 1 ] 7. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both sides. There is no dispute as regards the fact that the vehicle was a motor cab. In this context, it is relevant to extract the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 2(25) of the Act defines a “motor cab” as follows: “(25) “motorcab” means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward;” Section 2(35) of the Act defines “public service vehicle” as follows: “(35) “public service vehicle” means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage, and stage carriage;” Section 2(47) of the Act defines “transport vehicle” as follows: “(47) “transport vehicle” means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle;” Since the vehicle is a motorcab, there is no doubt that the vehicle belonging to the appellant herein is a transport vehicle. Section 66 of the Act enumerates the necessity of permits and the exempted category of vehicles for which Section 66 (1) does not apply. Section 66 of the Act reads as follows: “66. Section 66 of the Act enumerates the necessity of permits and the exempted category of vehicles for which Section 66 (1) does not apply. Section 66 of the Act reads as follows: “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 authorising him the use of 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, authorise 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, authorise 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, authorise the use of the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him. (2) The holder of a goods carriage permit may use the vehicle, for the drawing of any public or semitrailer not owned by him, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed: Provided that the holder of a permit of any articulated vehicle may use the prime-mover of that articulated vehicle for any other semi-trailor: (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply— (a) to any transport vehicle owned by the Central Government or a State Government and used for Government purposes unconnected with any commercial enterprise; (b) to any transport vehicle owned by a local authority or by a person acting under contract with a local authority and used solely for road cleansing, road watering or conservancy purposes; (c) to any transport vehicle used solely for police, fire brigade or ambulance purposes; (d) to any transport vehicle used solely for the conveyance of corpses and the mourners accompanying the corpses; (e) to any transport vehicle used for towing a disabled vehicle or for removing goods from a disabled vehicle to a place of safety; (f) to any transport vehicle used for any other public purpose as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf; (g) to any transport vehicle used by a person who manufactures or deals in motor vehicles or builds bodies for attachment to chassis, solely for such purposes and in accordance with such conditions as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf; (i) to any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 3,000 kilograms; (j) subject to such conditions as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, to any transport vehicle purchased in one State and proceeding to a place, situated in that State or in any other State, without carrying any passenger or goods; (k) to any transport vehicle which has been temporarily registered under section 43 while proceeding empty to any place for the purpose of registration of the vehicle; (m) 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; (n) to any transport vehicle used for such purposes as the Central or State Government may, by order, specify; (o) to any transport vehicle which is subject to a hire- purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement and which owing to the default of the owner has been taken possession of by or on behalf of, the person with whom the owner has entered into such agreement, to enable such motor vehicle to reach its destination; or (p) to any transport vehicle while proceeding empty to any place for purpose of repair. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), sub-section (1) shall if the State Government by rule made under section 96 so prescribes, apply to any motor vehicle adapted to carry more than nine persons excluding the driver.” A perusal of Section 66 of the Act makes it clear that the vehicle in this case does not come under the category mentioned in Section 66 (3) of the Act. 8. Section 149 (2)(1)(a) of the Act deals with the circumstances, under which the insurer cannot be held liable to indemnify the owner, which reads as follows: “149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks.—(1) xxxxxx (2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely:— (a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely:— (i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle— (a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or (b) for organised racing and speed testing, or (c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or (d) without side-car being attached where the vehicle is a motor cycle; or (ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification; or (iii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion; or xxxxx” 9. According to the appellants, the vehicle was not used for hire or reward, but for their personal purpose. The contention that it is for the insurer to prove that the vehicle was plied for hire or reward, does not have any significance to the facts of the case. It is true that RW1 had testified that the vehicle was not used as a taxi at the time of the accident. Since the vehicle was a motor cab, it cannot be operated on public roads without a valid permit and there is no necessity for the insurer to prove that the vehicle was used for hire or reward. 10. As already stated, the vehicle was registered as a motor cab. Having a valid permit is indeed a mandatory requirement for operating a motor cab on public roads, non compliance of which amounts to fundamental breach of policy conditions. The appellants/owner & driver of the offending vehicle, who were respondents 2 and 1 respectively before the tribunal, had produced Ext.B5 copy of permit before the tribunal, which reveals that the vehicle was registered as “motor cab” having a maximum passenger capacity of 6 + 1 and the permit was valid for five years from 09.05.2006 to 08.05.2011. The accident was on 03.05.2006. Hence, it is clear that there was no valid permit for the vehicle at the relevant time of the accident. In Pareed Pillai (supra), the Full Bench of this Court held that it is mandatory under Section 66 (1) of the Act to possess a valid permit by the transport vehicle unless it comes under the specified circumstances mentioned in Section 66 (3) of the Act. Further, the apex court in Amrit Paul Singh v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2018 (3) KHC 197 ] , has held that use of a vehicle in a public place without permit is a fundamental/statutory infraction. 11. Admittedly, the vehicle in this case is a motor cab and was not having a valid permit at the time of the accident. If a vehicle operates without a valid permit, it will be at the risk and costs of the owner, regardless of the vehicle's use. 11. Admittedly, the vehicle in this case is a motor cab and was not having a valid permit at the time of the accident. If a vehicle operates without a valid permit, it will be at the risk and costs of the owner, regardless of the vehicle's use. In Mangalal (supra) relied on by the appellants, the insurer did not prove that there was no valid permit at the time of the accident, whereas in this case, the documents produced by the appellants themselves prove that the vehicle was not having a valid permit at the time of the accident and hence, there is no necessity for the insurer to prove the same. Therefore, since there was a fundamental breach of policy conditions, I find that the impugned award passed by the tribunal, granting the insurer a right of recovery against the owner is justifiable, which does not require any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.