m 200 mm (W) WWW amm f WWW W HEGH COURT OF C APPELLANTS 1. Talf Vs Sa’mami, aged abau‘r 60 year's, 5/0 Anfhmm SaTnami. WWW#WW animanéyr HHATTIséARH AT BILASPUR M A No 803f 2004 Lammsh @ Lam Pmsad, \s/o Prahiad Samami, aged abou? 3O yrs. 2. Prahkxd Das Boih are R/o V311. Dewari, P.5. & . Mungeli, Dis’rf. Bilaspur (C6) RE5PONDENTS 1 . The Orienfal Insurance Company Limifed, Branch Office Dayaiband/ Biiaspur, Disff. Bilaspur- (C.6.) Jagr'if Das, 5/0 Devcharan Safnami, aged abouf 19 year's, R/o Sangwa (Dewri), P.5. 6: Tah. Mungeli, Dish”. Biiaspur (C.6.) Presanf: Mr. J‘K. Shasfri, Adv. with Miss Sushma Chandel, Adv. for ‘i'he appellant Mr. Vincy HarH, Sr. Adv. with Mr. $.K. Mishra, Adv. fgr resgondent No.1. Mr. Ufkarsh Verma, Adv. for respondan’r No.2 ORAL Per Dhirendm Mishm, J i'parfies in ’rhe fir-sf session, bu’r an responden‘l‘ No.1 fha‘r he shaH be ci‘H L _ ORDER (7. 5.2007) WW,W,W WW The maffer was heard finaHy vyifh fhe consent of karned counsel for the fhe prayer of learned 5r. Advocafe for 9 certain Judgmem's The mafiewuin XI-HC~—78 mW,W—¢,W @ mm m 200 mm (W) WWW i Hm m WWWm IifséW WWW %a?1%manéw heard affer funch. HoweverTWher" ?We ’mé‘rr’er was cailed subsequenfly none appears on behalf of respondem‘ No.‘l. This is owners' appeal againslrr fhe award dafed 7.1.2004 passed in Ciaim Case No.7/2002 by fhe 2“ Addii‘ianiml Moi‘or‘ Accideni Tribunais (F.T.C.), Mungali, Disfr'icf Biiaspur' whereby iear'neq‘i ciaims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.47,000/- in favour of respondenjr No.2 for The injuries sus‘mineo by him in a road accidem‘ caused by vehicie N19.CGIO-A-OIO7 which was driven rashiy and negiigeniiy a? The Time of acciden‘r by appelian‘r No.1 and owned by oppeiioni' No.2. The argumeni urged by ieaiJned counsei for fhe oppeiion'is is 'i'ho‘i' ihe iraci'or was vaiidiy insured by resp eni- No.1 for The reievan’r period, however, ihe iribunoi has exonera‘ied ’rhe in uronce company firsi‘iy on ihe ground ihoi' Time of occidenf and secondiy, of ihe vehicle, which was insured for ogricuiiuml purposes, was being used for Transporfing sand i.e. for non- ogricuiiurai purpose. Learned couns l furiher submii's fhai The onus of proving ‘ihe breach of policy condition squar ly lies upon The insurance company. Learned counsel for The app llanT furTher submiTTed ThaT from perusal of The documenTs available on record il' is manifesl‘ly clear The? fhe appellanT No.1, who was driving TracTor aT The re vanT Time, was possessing learning license, which was valid for The period 16. .2001 To 15.8.2001 and he was subsequenfly issued permanenT driving license f r The period commencing from 19.6.2001 To 18.6.2021, whereas, The aceidenT T ok place on 22.4.2001. Thus, iT is clear ThaT aT The Time of incidenT The driver w possessing valid learning license. y The driver of vehicle was no? posses ing valid and effecfive driving license of The h o d Piacing reliance on ‘l'he law Iaic down by fhe Hon'ble Apex Cour-1‘ in The maffer of National Insurance Co y Limifed Vs Swarm Singh & afhers reporfed in (2004) 3 SCC 297 if is submiffed Thm‘ where ’rhe driver cf The offending vehicle was possessing lear ers’ license, The insurance company would be liable to saTisfy 'l‘he award. If w furlher argued Thai from 1‘he evidence available on record i‘l' is evidenl' Thal‘ f e vehicle was being used for fransporl‘ing fhe sand for fhe purpose of cansfr cfion cf granary for fhe owner of The fracfor and fherefore, fhe finding a fhe fribunal ‘rhaf fhe vehicle was being used for ofher fhan agriculfural purpo es is counfer fo The evidence available on record because consfrucfing granary a par‘l of fhe agriculfural opera‘rion and ac? of The owner in TransporTing The d by his Tracfor cannoT be consTrued To be used of vehicle for non-agriculfur l purposes and as such in violaTian of The policy condiTion. On The oTher hand, learned 5r AdvocaTe for respondenT No.1 submiTTed Thaf The use of Trolley for TransparTi g sand is noT an agriculTural purpose and Thus, There is apparenT breach of polic condiTion. I have heard learned counsel r The parTies and perused The impugned award as also The evidence available on record. IT is noT in dispuTe ThaT The driver of The vehicle possessed learning §license for The relevanT period and su sequenTly he was issued permanenf driving license by The RIO. concerned. In he maTTer of Swaran Singh (supra) This ’ poinT has been dealT wiTh and iT has be n held ThaT simply because The driver was lpossessing l learning license aT The Time of accidenT, The somewill noT absolve The l i i m n n o XI—HC—78 “>5 W m 111 200 mm (WW) mam 1 ,. 3941mm mmmm WWWIIWW %a’manésv WW,W§,W k F\oshan/- insurance company from fhe Iiabilify of safisfying fhe decree and fher'efore, fhe finding of fhe Tribunal in fhis regard canno‘l' be susfained. Anofher- ground on The basi' of which The Tribunal has exonerafed fhe insurance company is That The vehi !e was *ransporfing The sand af the reievanf Time and as such iT was being us d for non—agriculTurai purpose is aiso noT susTainable because from The evi ence available on record parTicularly The evidence of driver Lamlesh who h sTaTed ThaT he was engaged by The owner Prahalad Das as The driver and he as Transpori'ing The sand for The purpose of consTrucTion of granary for The a ner, iT cannoT be said ThaT The TracTor was used for non-agriculTural purpose. In The resulT, The appeal i parTly allowed and The impugned award is modified To The exTenT ThaT in add Tion To appellanT No.1 & 2, respondenT No.1- Insurance Company shall also be lia le for saTisfying The impugned award. ResT of The condiTions of The impugned a ard shall remain as iT is. / ll‘S/246ei 2/2007 w- 50,000. GRPRJ W m ‘Hi 200 Wm (W) WWW mm'm mmm WWdfsidW . i §iaifcm3né¥r