misD IN THE HON*BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal {C} No. /2008 APPELLANT Reliance General Insurance Conipany Limited, Through Divisional Manager, General Insurance, Branch Office-Krishna Complex, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) At present 4th Floor, Ravi Bhawan Raipur (INSURER OF AUTO N0. C.G. 04 T 23791 VERSUS RESPONDENTS Y ' Smt. Suniti Bai Wd/o Late Rajkumar Sahu, aged about 30 years, Satish Kumar Sahu S/o Late Rajkumar Sahu, aged about 17 years, Chitrasen Sahu S/o Late Rajkumar Sahu,. aged about 15 years, Mukesh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Rajkumar Sahu, aged about 13 years, 5) Vishwanath Sahu S/o Late DularwaSahu, aged about 60 years, 6) ^•K . ^•••yc..^.\^! ^^\ k 7) ..••y.y.:.^ ?y ~ ..•••"-^ "^ ^;"^ ...-•' ^ ^^ ^- 8L °s Smt. Jainun Bai W/o Vishwanath Sahu, aged about 55 years, Respondent no. 2 to 4 minor represented through natural guardian mother Smt. Suniti Sahu, AI1 R/o VUlage Mura, Thana Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) (CLAIIMEANTSI Dewashish Mallik S/oBhanwardas MAllik, aged about 30 years, R/o Udaya Society Tatibandh, Thana Amanaka, District Raipur (C.G.) (DRFVER OF AUTO N0. C.G. 04 T 23791 Tapsi Sarkar D/o Somnath Sarkar, R/o 6/10 Udaya Society, Sector-4, New Rotaiy Nagar, Sushma Provision Stores, Raipur (C.G.) (OWNER OF AUTO N0. C.G. 04 T 2379) Gokul Ram Sahu S/o Thanwar Ram, aged about 37 years, R/o Village-Kura, Post- Darba, Thana-Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) (DRIVER OP TRACTOS N0. C.G.- 05/C-4872 AND TROLLEY N0. <?.G.. 05/C-48731 10) > 11) ^ Chandra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Moolchand, R/o ViIlage-Mura, Post-Darba, Thana-Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) fOWNER OF TRACTOR N0. C.G.-05/C- 4872 AND TROLLEY N0. C.G.-05/C- 48731 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kutchery Chowk, ' Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (INSURER OF TRACTOR N0. C.G.-05/C- 4872 AND TROLLEY N0. C.G.-05/C- T i ^ MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 AS AMENDED BY ACT OF 1994 __TJl^A HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BtLASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. M.A. fcl No.414/2008 Appellant Resoondents Vs Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Smt. Suniti Bai and others Present: Mr. SS Rajput, counsel forthe appellant/insurance company. Mr. Satyendra Sahu, counsel for respondents No. 1 to 6. Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.11/The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. None for respondents No. 7 & 8, driver and owner of the truck, despite service of notice. ORDER(Oral» (28th June, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J: This appeal has been filed by the appellant- Reliance General Insurance Company Limited against the award of the Motor Accldent Claims Tribunal, Raipur (in short "the Tribunal") dated 19th February, 2CX)8 passed in Claim Case No. 15/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 4.2.2007 at about 1.30 in the afternoon, deceased Rajkumar Sahu had gone for doing labour work in Tractor No. CG 05C 4872 & Trolley No. CG-05C-4873. The satel Tractor-Trolley was being driven by respondent No.9 Gokul Ram Sahu. When they reached Vitlage : Kathiya near the house of Narottam Dhruv, respondent No. 7 Dewashish MaJtSk, by driving Auto No. CG- 04T-2379 rashly and negligently, dashed the engjne of the said truck, as a'result of whteh the Tractor-Troliey got uncontrolled and tumed ^: \ '.^ j <^i turtle beside the road. Rajkumar Sahu sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. 3. Though the appellant/insurance company had got permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but it is chaUenging the IjabiJity part at this stage. 4. Cross objection has also been filed by the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 for enhancement ofthe compensation amount. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the driver of three wheeler was not having an effective and valid driving licence on the date of acddent and as such, the insurance company should not have been held liable to pay compensation. It was the liabdity of the owner as there was breach of policy conditions. 6. We have perused the copy of driving licence, whteh is Ex.D/6, and found that Debashis ^4allik, S/o Shri Bhrama Das was granted jjcence for driving motorcycle and LMV only w.e.f. 11.5.2005 to 9.11.2024. In this regard, the appellant produced Ucence CterR from Regional Transport Office, Raipur as NAW-1 before the Tribunal, who has stated that driver Debashis Matljk was authorized to drive motorcycte and car w.e.f. 1 1.5.2005 to 9.11 .2024. He was not granted driving Jicence for any other vehicle. He has stated speciftoally that Debashis Maltik was not granted driving Ifcence to drive a transport vehicte. Admittedly, three wheeler was a transport vehfote. The insurance policy (Ex.D/7) of three wheeler was atso a package polfoy for passenger carrying vehicle. 7. In New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Prabhu Lal, (2008) 1 SCC 696, it was held in paragraphs 30, 37 and 38 thus: "30. Now, it is the case of the Insurance Company that the vehicte ofthe complainant which met wfth an acckient was a "transport vehicle". It was submitted that the insured vehicle was a "goods carriage" and was thus a "transport vehide". The vehicte was driven by Ram Narain, who was authorized to drive Itght motor vehide and not a transport vehtete. Since the driver had no ticence to drive transport vehicte in absence of necessary endorsement in his licence to that effect, he coukt not have driven Tata 709 and when that vehicle met with an accident, the Insurance Company could not be made Ijable to pay compensation. 37. The argument of the Insurance Company is that at the time of accident, Ram Narain had no valid and effective licence to drive Tata 709. Indisputably, Ram Narain was having a licence to drive light motor vehide. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, refemng to various provisions of the Act submitted that If a person is having Jicence to drive light motor vehtele, he cannot drivea transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do (Section 3). Clauses (14). (21). (28) and (47) of Section 2 make it dear that if a vehide is "light motor vehide", but falte under the category of transport vehjcle, the driving licence has to be duly endorsed under Section 3 of the Act. If ft is not done, a person holding driving licence to ply light motor vehtete cannot ply transport vehicte. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, Ram Narain was having Ifcence to drive light motor vehicle. The licence was ncrt endorsed as required and hence, he could not have drwen Tata 709 in absence of requisite endorsement and the Insurance Company could not be held liabte. 38. We find considerabte force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. We also find that the District Forum considered the question in fts /Pt^\ y'&.^^s^ i Vs^ ?^^^ proper perspective and held that the vehicle driven by Ram Narain was covered by the category of transport vehicte under Clause (47) of Section 2 of the Act. Section 3, therefore, required the driver to have an endorsement which would entitle him to pty such vehfole. It is not even the case of the complainant that there was such endorsement and Ram Narain was allowed to ply transport vehtete. On the contrary, the case of the complainant was that it was Mohd. Julfikar who was driving the vehtete. To us, therefore, the Distrtet Forum was right in holding that Ram Narain could not have driven the vehjcle in question." 8. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Angad Kol and others, (2009) 11 SCC 356, it was held in paragraphs 15, 16 and 18 thus: "15. Section 9 provides for "grant of driving licence". Sectjon 10 prescribes the form and contents of licences to drive whteh is to the following effect: "10. Form and contents of licences to of/?Ve.-(1) Every leamer's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under Section 18, shall be in such form and shali contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) A tearner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall ateo be expressed as entitling ttw holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following ciasses, namely: (a)-(c) (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicte; (i) road roller; (j) motor vehicte of a specified description." The distinction between a "Jjght motor vehtete" and a "transport vehicle" is. therefore, evident. A transport ""~~~~} ...^y^^ ^f^-^, v%, :1-'A'^s^;:'~\ ^^.^^7 : ^^^. ^j^y vehicle may be a light motor vehtele but for the purpose of drMng the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained. 16. The djstinction between a "transport vehicle" and a "passenger vehicte" can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 provkles for duration of a period of three years in case of an effective licence to drive a "transport vehtele" whereas in ease of any other licence, it may remajn effecth/e for a period of 20 years. 18. The Insurance Company examinect Shri R.K. Htla, an officer of the Regional Transport Authority. The contents of his deposition. as has been notteed by the tearned Tribunal jn para 7 ofthe award, is as under: "The onus of Issue 2 is on Opposite Party 3. But they could not establish their allegation that the vehtole was driven contrary to the conditions of the insurance contract. Witness 1 of the opposite party Shri R.K. Hela of the Regional Transport Authority has stated that Opposite Party 1 had Ifoence to drive Ught motor vehicte for the period 30-7-2003 to 29-7-2023 and the vehtele jnvolved is a light goods vehicle. It is contended that the holder of the licence had to obtain an endorsement to drive goods vehictes but it has not been established whether the vehicle involved in the accident js a goods vehicie and whether the holder ofthe licence was entitled to drive a goods carriage vehicle. It has also not been established that the vehicle involved was a goods carriage vehicte. Opposite Party 3 could not establish that the vehicte was driven contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance. As a result Opposite Party 3 has not been able to establish that the driver of the vehicle which caused the accident did not have an effective and valid licence. Hence Issue 2 is decided against Respondent 3." 1^,,^.^....., N, ..• 9. In New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and another, (2008) 8 SCC 253, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 10 thus: "10. Section 10 of the Act provides for classes of the driving licence. Djfferent classes of vehicle have been defined in different provisions ofthe Motor Vehicles Act The transport vehtole" is defined in Section 2(47) of the Act to mean a publjc service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational instjtution bus or a private service vehicle. We have noticed hereinbefore the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 41. We have also noticed the notiflcation issued by the Central Govemment in this behalf. The said notification cleariy postulates that a three-wheeled vehtele for transport of passengers or goods comes within the purview of Class 5 of the Tabte appended thereto. The {jcerice granted in favour of the said Salim Amadbhai goes to show that the same was granted for a vehicte other than the transport vehicle. It was vatid from 13-5-2004 to 12-5- 2024. Section 14(2)(a) provides that a driving licence issued or renewed under the Act shall, in case of a Ucence to drive a transport vehtele will be effective for a period of three years whereas in the case of any other vehicte it can be issued or renewed for a period of 20 years from the d^e of jssuance or renewal. The fact that the licence was granted for a period of 20 years, thus, ctearly shows that Saiim Amadbhai. driver of the vehide, was not granted a valid driving licence for driving a transport vehicte." 10. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant/insurance company is not liabje to pay compensation. .^rr'^' ^ ^r 11. Now we come to cross objection filed by the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 for enhancement of the compensation amount. 12. The deceased was a labourer by profession. The Tribunal has assessed daily income of the deceased as Rs.70/- and thus, monthly income Rs.2,100/- and annual tncome comes to Rs.25,200/-. Accordingly to the law lald down in Saria Verma (Smt) Vs. Delhl Transport Corporaffon andanother, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, if number of dependents is 4 to 6, then deduction for personal Jiving expenses of the deceased would be 1/4th. Therefore, after deducting 1/4th, the remainder comes to Rs.18,900/-. Age of the deceased was 36 years at the time of accident; therefore, the muttiptier of 18 would be applicable. Thus, totat loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,83,500/-. 13. Besides this. widow of the deceased would be entitled to get Rs.5,000/- as consortium and remaining five ctaimants also Rs.5,000/- each for loss of love and affection. Further. they are also entttled to get Rs.5,000/- for loss of estate and again Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. Thus, after adding Rs.40.000/- towards the above heads, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,23,500/-. Therefore, the cross objection is allowed in part and the amount of compensation is enhanced to that of Rs.3,23,500/-. which the daimants would be entitled to get. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the award shali remain intact. 14. In the result, we allow the miscellaneous appeal and hold that the appellant/insurance company is not Uable to pay the compensation and that part of the impugned award is set aside. .,^.€' Khan 15. The cross objection js allowed in part. We direct that the owner of the vehicte No. CG 04-T-2379 shatl pay the compensation of Rs.3,23,500/- to the daimants, which shatl be disbursed to the claimants as per conditions mentioned in the impugned award. Remaining part of the impugned award is not interfered with. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge B ^ y.