IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR rc.G.y MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL /C) N0. fti^e^MsS OF2010 ^, } ^ APPELLANT 1(.^ ^w:^ ...^s^ ^•>*"...o' :\-^" ^' ^^"" ^ NON-APPLICANTS: > /Sagar Hirani, S/o Ganesh Hirani Sindhi, aged about years, R/o Colony Bemetara, Police Station Bemetara, DistrictDurg (C.G.) VERSUS Bholaram Chourasiya, S/o Sukhram Chourasiya (Tamboli), aged about 58 years, R/o Village Dadhi, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) (Claimant) \ ^ 3.. Bhartichand, S/o Narendra Singh Jatav, aged about 37 years, R/o Nayapara, Bemetara, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) (Driver) National Insurance Company Limited, Git Complex Near Gurudwara, Station Raod, District Durg(C.G.) Claimed before Tribunal : Rs.2,^3,000/- ^-^" Amount awarded by the learned Tribunal : Rs. 35,766/- Claimed in this Memo of Appeal : Rs . 35%6/- MISCELLANEQUSAPEEAUlNDE^CTIQN^OFTH^MffimB VEHICLESACT^1988 fflGH CO»RTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR &B: Hon'Me Sairi Pradiant Kumar Mishra ~^~ Misc. AppeaTNo. 388/2010 AKPELLANT NX>N-APPLICANTS SagarHiraid Versus Blwrfaram Chourasuya aaid Ors. Aooearance: Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel for the appellant. ORALORDER (23.06.2010) This appeal by the owner of the offending vehicle has been preferred on the ground that leamed Tribunal has committed serious error of law by exonerating the Insuranee Company from the liability of payment of eompensation as well as oa the ground tiiat in any case, the Tribunal should liave held that it is a ease of contributory negligence and should have apportioned the UabUity of pftymcnt of compensation on the vehicle bdonging to the appellant as well as on the motor vehicle on which the claimants were trBwling. (2) By the impugned award the leamed Claims Tribunal has held that Ihe elaimants are entitled to Rs.35,766/- as compensation. (3) The oflfending vehicle i.e. tfae vehiele belonging to the owner is a goods carrying three wheekr and thus is a transport vehicle. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in National A / Insurance Company Limited Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria (2008) ^) 3 SCC 464, Shri Sahu, leamed counsel for the appellaat submits thirt since in the present case, tfae driver was having a valid driving Ueense to drive a light motor vehick and Ifae three wheeler auto is also a light motor vehicle, the Insurance Company should have been made liable for payment ofcompensation. (4) The judgment in the case of Nattond hisurance Conpany Unrited Vs. Annappa h-appa Nesiwia (supra) has subsequentiy been eonsidered and distinguished by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oricntal Insurance Compimy Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol & Ors. reported in 2009 AIR SCW 2747. In th©said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is distinction between *light motor vehicle' and 'transport vehicle* and that a teansport vehicle may be light motor vehicle, but fw tiie purpose ofdriving, a definite Ucense is required to be obtained for transport vehicle. (5) The word 'transport vehiele* has been defined under section 2 (47) of Ae Motor Vehicles Act 1988, it means a publie service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. 'The word 'goods camag^' has been defined under section 2 (14) of the act to mean any motor whiele constroeted of adapted for use solely for the carriage ofgoods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted wben used for tfae cairii^e ofgoods. (6) On a reading ofthe defimtioa ofthe word 'tian^XHrt vehicle" it 'would clearly appew that a goods carriage has been incliided in the 11^'5 J »^.,-<y^/ <:\ definition of the transpoirt vehiele. Undi^utedly the ISbsee wheeler auto involved in tfiis case is a goods camage as held by the Tribunal in para 12 ofthe award. (7) Thus, tfie judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. An^ad Kd & Ors. (supra) would be squarely applicable and the leamed Tribunal has not committed any error by exonerating the Insuraaee Company from the Uability ofpayment ofcompensation. (8) The next argument ofthe leamed counsel for the appellant is that in any case it was a case of contributory negligence, as two vehicles were involved. According to him, the leamed Tribunal should have apportioned the liability. (9) On pemsal ofthe impugned award, it would be seen (hat this ground of contributory negligence has not been raised by the appellant before the Tribunal. On perosal of the applieant's reply before the Claims Tribunal also it would appear that no such plea of contributory negligence even as an altemative pleading has been raised tfaerein. (10) Since no plea has been raised, this eourt is unable to accept the contention raised by leamed counsel for fhe appellant. (11) There is no substance in this sppeai, which fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd//- prashantKumarMishra Judge ^