..K ..../.' f* IN THE HON'BLE HliGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C)No.- 4^ /2010 iB'OsSSI APPELLANT ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER OFFICE- T.P.NAGAR KORBA ^ RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS:- \^^""\ . .»..:.-^^£- ''*' ^^^"" ^:::^!^^ Vrs. NOHAR SlNGH AGE 25 S/0 SHRAWAN SINGH RESIDENT VILLAGE NON-BIRRA, KANNAUJPARA, PALI, KATGHORA RESPONDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS 2. RAMESHWAR LAL YADAV AGE 20 ^ YEARS,S/ORAMLALYADAV"DRIVER", -RESIDENT VILLAGERANGBEL, KORBA C.G. 3. R.P. SHRrVASTAVA S/0 MEVALAL, (^ RESIDENT QR.NO. B-23 VIKASNAGAR, KUSMUNDA, KATGHORA APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1730F MOTOR VEmCLE AGT 1988 HI6H COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR &IVISION BENCH HON'BLE SHRI I.M. QU&DUSI & HON'BLEjSHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. JJ. APPELLANT RESPONDENTS /IPPELLANT RESPONDENTS M.A. (C) N0.495 OF 2010 Oriental Insurance Company Limited' Versus Shivratan Singh <& others & fA.A.(C) N0.476 OF 2010 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Nohar Singh & others. Present: Shri Suhdir Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant in both appeals. Shri S.R.J. Jaiswal, Advocate for respondent No.l in both appeals. None for the other respondents. OR&ER (Oral) (25.01.2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J. 1. Heard. . 2. The above twb appeals i.e. M.A. (c) Nos.495/10 & 476/10, are being disposed of by this common order as both these appeals have been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the common award dated 15.12.2009 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, '' Katghdra, District Korba (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case Nos.206/07 & 207/07 partially allowing the claim applications of the injured claimants. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the claimants-injured have filed two separate claim, applications seeking compensation of Rs.15,95,000/- <& Rs.14,87,000/- respectively for the permanent disability sustained by them in a motor accident took place on 5.2.2007 at about 10.00 p.m. dup to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep bear-ing registration number C612-8083. They have also pleaded that due to their permanent x s< PE Y l^ :i 1 ]]Dl|S J.08J344. |DM3U9J pUD JD3A 3UO j.O pOUSd D JOj. 3AI+33J.J.3 aq sjn+DU snopjDZDL) jo snojs6uDp j.o spoo6 SuiAjjos 3|3ii|3A 4.JodsUDJ4. D 3MJp 04. 33U331| J.O 3SD3 3l|4.U! 4.DL|4. p3p!*OJ(j :SJD3X S3JL|4. J.O pOUSd D JOj. 3AJ4.33J.J.3 3q '3|31L|3A 4.JodsUDJ4. D SAIJp 0+ a3U331| D j.0 3SD3 31)4. Ul (D) -'||DI|S +3V s'44- JSpun psMsuaj jo psnssi 33U33i| SuiAup.y (2) •33U331| J.O SnSSj J.O a4,Dp si|4. IUOJJ.S44.UOIU xis j.o pouad D joj. SAipaj.j.s sq '4.3V sit|4. j.o suoisiAojd J844.0 344. 04.4.3afqns '||DI|S 4.3V siL|4. jspun panss.i ssussii S,JSUJD3| y (t) -'S3|3jq3A J04.0UI SAUp o+ sa3ua3j| j.o Aouajjn^ 'frt,, -:sni|4. sposj 8861 '+3V 344. ^o ^ uoi+oas •6 •pJDMD p3u6ndUII 31)4. OS|D SD |Dunqui 3i|4. j.o spjossj SL|4. pssnjsd OS|D 3ADq 3/v\ 'sai+JDd ai|4. joj. |asuno3 p3UjD3| pJD3L| 3ADl| 3/V\ 'g •pjDMD pauSnduii 31)4. ps+joddns SDI| t'o|\j 4.uapuodssj 344. joj. [asunoo psujD3| 'puDL) jsq+o ai|4. UQ 'Z •(35) OZ •9'V'J. (E) 8002 "! ps+Jodaj jsq+ouo PUD J.i>|oj Di|suDUoifDy usquo^soy "sy\ 'p+| '03 aouDjnssy oipui M3N j.0 JS+J.DIU 3L|J. Ul p3jsA!|3p 4.jno3 atusjdng 3|q,uo|-| j.o 4.usiu6pnf 31)4. uo p83D|d Sl 33UDI|3y '/<UDdlU03 SOUDjnSUI 3L|4. UO S+UDUIID|3 31)4. 04. UOI+DSUsdtUOS Aod 04. A4.!|jqDi| 6u]U34.sDj. ui psjja SDL| |Dunquj^ 31)4. 'ssouD+siunsJia 95344. ui puo p34.o]0]A ysaq OS|D aAOL| gggt 'PV3i|4. J-o ^ uoipag j.o suoisiAojd 3i|+ +nq suoj4.ipuo3 A3i|od souDjnsui ^o i|3D3jq ^|uo +ou si aj3i<4. +01)4. pauii-uqns J344.^nj. SDI| 3|-| •s|3!i|3A 4.jodsuoj4. jo spoo6 aijj. 4.ou puo X|UO 3|3143A JO+OUI +l|6l| 3+DAjjd 3AUp 0+ 3SU33)] SuiMJp SuiADq SDM 3L| SD 3|31L|3A SuipUSJ.j.O 844. 3AUp 0+ pSZUOLj+nD 4.0U SDM 3|31l|3A 6uipU3j.^O 31)4. j.O JSAUp 4.Dl|+ p34.+IUiqhS SDI| Awdwoy 33UDjnsui-4.UD]|addD ai|4. joj. [ssunoo psujoai '|D(v>jD6y '^W '9 •A3i|od si|4. J.o suoi4.!puoo y sauaj. j.o qoDsjq sAOjd 04. p3|!Dj. SDI) Xuoduio^ ssuDjnsui 3i|4.4.0^4. punoj6 3^4. uo Sj.uDiuiD|3-p3jnfu! 31)4. o+ uoi+DSuaduios Xod 04. 3|qDi| Auoduio^ 33UDjnsui/4.UD||3ddD 344. p|3i| puo S4.UDUiiD|3 p3jnfui 3i|4. j.o suo!4.D3i|ddD iuiD]3 944. pamo||D A|+jDd SDI| 'ssi+Jod 31)4. /<q spoiu suoissiiuqns PUD p83D]d |DU34.DUI 'p3| 33U3p!A8 J.O Aui+njOS 3SO|3 UO '|DUnqiJ^ p3UJD3| 3l|J. •Q •S4.UDUi!D|3-p3jnru! 344. j.o UI]D|3 344. 6ui/(u3p S4.U3U13+D4.S UI-3WJW 34.DJod3S Ji3i|4. p3|!^ puo |Dunqui 31(4. sjoj.sq p3jD3ddo S4.uD3i|ddD-uou/S4.u3puods3J 31)4. 'suoiuuins.j.o 331AJ3S J34.J.V 'fr •44-uoiu jad -/O00'£'sySUIUJDS SDM 34 4.uap!3ui 04. JOIjd SD /4.13DdD3 6UIUJD3 j.o sso| psu]D4.sns SADI) A344. '4.U3lU3|qDS!p -..* ^'^"•^ s ^ '^^/^R^ ^ ^ •^-^/-ff be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus; and (b) in case of any other licence,- (i) if the person obtaihing the licence, either originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained theage of (fifty years) on the date of issue or, as the case may be, renewalthereof- (A) be effective for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal; or (B) until the date on which such person attains the age of (Fifty Years), (ii) xxxxxxxxx Provided that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section continue to be effective for a period of thirty dqys from such expiry." 10.In the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol & others r'ported in (2009) 11 SCC 356 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: "Although the 'definition of 'light motor vehicle' brings within its umbrage both "transport vehicle" or "omnibus", indisputably, a distinction between an effective driving licence granted for transport vehicle and passenger motor vehicle exists. The distinction between a 'light motor vehicle' and a 'transport vehicle' is evident. A transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, adistinct licence is required to be obtained. The distinction betuveen a "transport vehicle" and a "passenger vehicle" can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Act. Section 14 (2) provides for duration of a period of three years in case of an effective driving licence to drive a 'transport vehicle', whereas in case of any other licence, it may remain effective for a period of twenty years. Thus, it is evident that a transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained......." 11. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal reported in 2008 (1) SCC 696 it was held thus:- "30. Now, it is the case of the Insurance Company that the vehiele of the complainant which met with an accident was a "transport vehicle". It was submitted that the insured vehicle was a good carriage" and was thus a "transport ^ % r'fsi:"^t'?M^. ' VS %/ vehicle". The vehicle was driven by Ram Narain, who was authorized to drive light motor vehicle and not a trgnsport vehicle. Since the driver had no licence to drive transport vehicle in absence of necessary endorsement in his licence to that effect, he could not have driven Tata 709 and when that vehicle met with an accident, the Insurance Company could not be made liable to pay compensation. 12.In the matter of Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir (supra) the Hon'bleSupreme Court repelling the submission of learned counsel forthe respondent that it did not matter as to whether thedriving licence issued for auto rickshaw was adapted for carrying passengers or goods has held that the driver was not hoiding an effective driving licence to drive auto rickshaw delivery van. 13. Indisputably, the District Transport Officer, Kor-ba (CG) in the letter dated 14.08.2006 (Ex.D-4), addressed to Ms. Anita Chacko, Advocate, has informed that on 22.07.2003 driving licence was issued to the driver of offending vehicle, and the same was valid upto 21.7.2023. Further, by appending a note at the bottom of the said letter has clarified that the said driving licence is not valid to drive that particular- vehicle i.e. the offending vehicle. 14. Thus, in view of the admitted fact that the licence has been granted for a period of 20 years, it can be safely said that the same has been issued for the purpose of a Vehicle other than a transport vehicle, as had it been granted for transport vehicle, the tenure thereof could not have exceeded to three years, as per Section 14 (2) (a) of the Act, 1988, and since the driyer had no licence to drive transport vehicle, in absence of necessary endorsement in his licence to that effect, he could not have driven the offending vehicle and when that vehicle met with an accident, the appellant- Insurance Company could not be made liable to pay compensation. 15. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, we allow this appeal and hold that the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and that part of the impugned award is hereby set-aside. We further direct that the liability to pay the compensation involved in the award is of the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. C612-8083. In case any amount deposited by the F [KP Kg'i;?kiP-."h'^f^? v'w;& ^ ^.. •-T-^ roshan/- appellant-Insurance Company has been withdrawn by the injured-claimants/ it will be open for it to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. However, if the amount, so deposited, has not been withdrawn so far, the appellant shall be allowed to withdraw the same. Rest of the conditions and findings of impugned award are hereby confirmed. It is hereby clarified that claimants are free to execute the award against the owner of the vehicle. 16. A copy of this order b.e placed in M.A. (C) No.476/10. 17. Certified copy as per rules. - - —— - —-- — \, • ! : Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Sd/- \> Judge I.M.Quddusi Judge