-5 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR n/USC.APPEAUONQ^^^LL / 2011 APPELLANT INSURER/RESPONDENT N0. 1 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., through'it's Legal Manager, Lal Ganga Shopping Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh V- VERSUS RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS ^— 1. Smt. Lakshmi Pandey, wife of Late Shri Deenanath Pandey, aged about 36 years {~2. Shubham Pandey, son of Late Shri f^ ^^ Deenanath Pandey, aged about 13 /" ^....-t> ' ^^•p^ f^'.^'' .^ ^ 'y.^^ ^' ^y(v years %-3. Shivam Pandey, son of Late Shri Deenanath Pandey, aged about 10 years Respondent No. 2 and 3 being minor through their natural guardian being mother Smt. Lakshmi Pandey All residents of Bajrang Nagar, Aamapara, Thana Azad Chowk, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Mithun Manjhi, son of Meniketan Manjhi, aged about 30 years, resident of Atal Avas, House No.40, Near Naley Jamul, Thana and Post Office Jamul, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (DRIVER) MEIVIORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT1988 e' S. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR HON'BLB I. M. QUDDUSI & HON'BLE G. MIEifHAJUDDIN, JJ M.A(C»No. 266/2011 ICICI Loinbard General Insurauce Co. Ltd. Vs. Sint. Laxini Pandey aud oftiers MISC. APPEAL UKDER SBCTXON 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES Amrito Das, Counsel for the appellaut. S. K. Gulia, counsel for respondents 1 to 3. Pe»_I.M.QXJDDUSI, J, (01.09.2011) 1. This appeal has been filed by ftie Insurance Coinpaay agaiust fhe impugned award dated 03.01.2011 passed by fhe Xfh Additional Motor Accident Clainis Tribuaal, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G) in Claim Case No. 19/2009 fastening Mabflity upon fhe appeUaiit to pay coiiipensation. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the version of the clainiaats are fhat deceased Deenanaih Pandey was traveling ia his Auto Rickshaw beanng Regn.No.07-T/1352 in the capacity of owuer aud passenger. He was goiag. froin Bhilai-3 to Power House. On the way at about 10.30 p.m.., (in the u^ht) the said Auto, which was being driven by non-applicant no.2 Mifhiin Manjhi, became unbalaaced and overtumed on fhe side of road, as a result of which deceased sustaiued grievous iujuries on his head and other parts of the body and ^ied on the spot. At fbie tiiae of accident, the deceased was aged about 40 years and was earaing Rs.3200/- per inonfh. The claiinaats beiag dependents ;'"'a>'s-.\. ./•....A^""1''^ /^—~% ^ ^.. :!Sss^ -<SI 7. ofthe deceased have filed claun petition u/s 163-A offhe niotor Vehicles Act for the award of total coinpensation of Rs.15,50,000/- on various heads. The leamed Claims Tribunal held fhat vehicle bearuis Rega.No.C.G.07-T/1352 inet wifh accident, as a result ofwhich deceased died; there was no breach of conditions of the insuraace poUcy and fhe claimiants are entitled to receive a sum. of Rs.3,77,000/- as coinpensation Iroru fhe non-applicants joinfly or severaUy. Leanied counsel for the appeUaat subiuits fhat tlie deceased was own.er of the vehicle and he is not a tturd party, fhercfore, aa application u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was not inaiataiaable. He further subnuts fhat the Tribiuial has wrongly awarded the coinpensation fhough the claiin. was not niaintainable u/s 163-A. We have heard leamed counsel for the parties and have also gone fhrough the records of fhe Tribuiial. At the tiine of accident the driver was not haviag valid and effective drivtug Ucense aad therefore, the conteactual liabflity for fhe owner who was sitting behiud fhe driver would also not be appticable as fhe driver was not haviag valid and effective driving license on the date of-Accident aad he was prosecuted u/ s 3 read with section 18 1 of the Motor Vehicles Act for not having valid aiid effective driviag license. Furfher in case of Orientdl Insiircince Company Linuted Vs. Rafni Dewi and others (2008) 5 SCC 736, Hon'ble the Apex Court held that Section 163-A ofthe MVA caruiot be said to have any application in regari. to an accident whereiu.fhe owaer of fhe m.0tor-vehicle himselfis involved. aB'';5&,^ 8. lEt view of the above, we aBow fhis appeal and set aside fhe impugned award dated 03.01.2011 aud exonerate the insurance Compauy jroin its liabUity. The claiaiants who are dependents of fhe owner of the vehicle are not entitled to get anv amount of coinpensation as fhe claim. petition u/s 163-A is not niaintauiable. Accorduagly, the claitn petition u/s 163-A stands disinissed. 9. The amount, if aay, deposited by the Insurance Coiiipaiiy sbaU be atlowed to be wittidrawn. 10. In fhe result, the appeal is aUowed. No order as to cost. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao