THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH ATBILASPUR f • :I APPLICANT APPELLANT ^y^ <<^ RESPONDENTS Claimants M.C.C. No. £53 of 2011 D|V5$l The New India Assurance Company Limited, Mahatma GandhiMarg, near Zhankar Talkies, Jagdalpur, District - The Company Trade Centre, opp.osite Rajeev Plaza, Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Smt. Sangeeta Nitin Khodbe W/o Late Nitin Khodbe, aged atjout 33 years, DRIVER 2, Harshit Khodbe, S/o Late Nitin Khodbe, aged about 12 years, 3. Ku. Vaishnavi Khodbe, D/o LateNitin Khodbe, aged about 4 years, RespondentsNo. 2 &3 being minor represented throygh mother Smt. Sangeeta Nitin Khodbe, respondent No.l, All R/o Ashoka Apartment No.2, Dharmpura Road, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar(C.G.) 4. Gopal Kashyap S/Q Raghunath Kashyap, aged about. 22 years, occupation Driver, R/o Kumh.arpara,' Shriram Prasad Mukherjee Ward Sanwarapara. Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) 5. Bhupendra Singh Rajput S/o B.S. Rajput, R/o Sangam Hotel, State Bank .Chowk Main Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) • MISCEl-LANEOUS CIVIL CASE FOR CORRECTION IN ORDER DATED 02/09/2011 PASSEDINfJ.A.rcyNo. 492 of 2011 IN CASE OFWTHE NEW INDIAASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. OWNER SMT. SANGEETA NITIN KHODBE AND OTHERS" DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Al3DliC_aj BY THE ..•»''"aEia'B,,. v /?^~^ '^. Respondents HI6H COURT OF CHHATTES6ARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QU&&USI & HON'BLE MR.6ULAM MINHAJUD&IN. JJ U.C.C. No.653/2011 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Sangeeta Nitin Khodbe & others & Ai.C.C. No.676/2011 Smt. Sangeeta Nitin Khodbe & others Vs (?opat Kash^ap & others. Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the applicant in AA.C.C. No.653/11. AAr. P.K. Tulsiyoan, Advocate for the opplicants in M.C.C. No.676/11. ORDER (OraQ ,«h I.M. Quddusi, J; 1. Heard on I.A. No.l filed in M.C.C. No.676/11 for exemption from fiting certified copy of the order dated 2.9.2011. 2. Considering the reasons mentioned in the application, it is allowed. The applicants are exempted from filing certified copy of the orde" dated 02.09.2011. 3. M.C.C. No.653/11 filed by the applicant-Insurance Company and M.C.C. No.676/11 filed by the appticants-claimants in Claim Case No.36/09 are being disposed-of by this common as both these applications have been filed for modification in the oral order dated 02.09.2011 passed in M.A. (C) No.491/11 (Smt. Sangegta Nitin Khodwe & others Vs. Sopal Kashyap & others) and' M.A. (C) No.492/11 (The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sangeeta Nitin Khodave & others). 4. Feeling aggrieved by the award dated 07.12.2010 passed by the learned 1 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Cases No.36/09 & 37/09. the I If^ claimants as well as the insurance compony both have filed four separate miscellaneous dppeals i.e. M.A. (C) Nos. 492/11 <& 446/11 by the insurance compony and M.A. (C) Nos.491/11 & 490/11 by the claimants in aforementioned claim cases. However, M.A. (C) Nos. 491/11 <& 492/11 were decided by the separate order- and M.A. (C) Nos. 490/11 & 446/11 were decided by the separate order. 5. Perused both the applications and the order dated 02.09.2011. 6. In the order dated 02.09.2011 vide which M.A. (C) Nos. 491/11 & 492/11 were decided inadvertently tiie point re9arding valid ouid effective driying licence and rate of simpte interest, as deatt specifically in M.A. (C) Nos. 492/11 & 446/11, have been left to be mentioned. Tlierefore, in the order dated 02.09.2011 passed in M.A. (C) Nos. 491/11 d 492/11 the reasons regarding holding of valid ond effective driving licence as wetl rate of interest, as mentioned in order dated 02.09.2011, is liable to be mentioned. Accordin9ly, foilowing be added in Para-11 of the order dated 02.09.2011 passed in M.A. (C) Nos. 491/11 <& 492/11;- ........So far as the ground raised by the dppetlant-Insurance Company re9ardin9 valid and effective driving licence is concerned, we have perused the driving licence available on the record and found that there is on endorsement dated 15.01.2009 in the driving licence to the effect that the driver is authorized to drive light transport vehicles and the same was duly signed by 1+ie Regional Transport Officer, Jagdalpur. However, later on, the said endor.sement vuas cancelled by the Regional Transport Officer, Jagdalpur on 9.6.2009 i.e. after the accident which took place on 28.5.2009, on the ground that due to some clerical mistake snid endorsemenf was made on the licence of the driver. Further, the owner of offending vehicle has stated in his statement that he has not only seen and examined the driving licence produced by the driver but also took test of driving of the ^ driver and found that the driver was competent to drive the yshicle and thereafter only he oppointed him as driver of the vehicle in question. In these cir'cumstances, it cannot be said that the yehicle was ptied in breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as there was no endorsement authorizing the driver to drive light transport vehicles and as such, owner of the offending vehicle cannot be hetd liable. Thus, we are of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal has not committed any iltegality or impropriety in absolving owner of the offending vehicle and fastening tiability on the appellant Insurance Company." Foltowing be added in Para-14:- ".....The claimants shall also be entitled to receive simple interest at the rate of 6% per cmnum from the dttte of filin9 of ciaim application till actual payment is made. Rest of the conditions imposed by the Claims Tribunal shall remain intact" 7. In yiew of above, both the applications are disposed of and the order dated 02.09.2011 is modified to the extent indicated above. This order shall form part of the order dated 02.09.2011 passed in M.A. (C) Nos. 491/11 & 492/11. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge