IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUOICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATTIS6ARH Misc. Appeal (C } No. of 2007 RESPON&ENTS .^" . APPELLANT Vs ; /- ^ ^The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through the Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kacheri Chowk, Madina Manzil, Raipur (C.S.). •l. Dhaneshwari Bai, Widow of Late Baliram, Age 30 years, Occupation; Housewife. 2.. braupadi, D/o Late Baliram, Age44 years, Minor. 3. burgawati D/o Late Baliram, Age 13 years, Minor. 4. Sankelia, b/o Late Baliram, Age 4 years, Minor. 5, Anarkali, t)/o Late Baliram, Age 2 years, Minor. 6. Saroj, D/o Late Baliram, Age 1 year, Minor. Respondents/claimants No.2 to 6 are minors through their natural guardian Dhaneshwari Bai, Widow of Late Balir'am. Respondents No.l to 6 above all R/o Village: Baghima (Chache), P.S. Dhaurpur, Tehsil: Rajpur, (Owner of vehicle) (Driver of vehicle) <^i Distt. Surguja (C.6.) 7^/Mohd. Rehman S/o Chingi Hussain Age 40 Years, Oecupation: Business, R/o Silfili, Post: Kamari, Via Shankar-garh, Tehsil: Shankargarh, Distt. Surguja C.6. ^-8. Sudhan Ram alias Kulha, S/o Pepata, Age 35 years, Caste: Jagesia, Occupation; t)ri»er, R/o Silfili, Post; Kamari, Via Shankargarh, Tehsil: Shankargarh, Distt. Surguja C.6. APPEAL U/S '173 OF THE MOTOR VEHCILES ACT. 1988 A&AINST THE AWARb/ORbER bATEb 12.12.2006 PASSEtS ^N CLAIM CASE N0.17/2006 BY THE 1st AbMTtONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. SUR6UJA. AMBIKAPUR PRESIDE& OVER BY SHRI T.R. CHUREN&RA. ^^""" -<• ? '. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B,: Ho^n^leShn JusticeJ.IVLQyddysi and Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Appellant MlscellaneoysABDeal (C,)Jlo.797_of2Q07 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Respondents Dhaneshwari Bai and others Present: Shri Ghanshyam Patel, counsel for the appellant. Shri Rahul Mishra, counsel for respondents No.7 and 8. None for other respondents. Miscellaneous Appeal ynder Section_173 of_theMQtorVehiclesAct ORAL ORDER (Passed on 24th February, 2011) Per I.IVI. Quddusi, J.: Heard. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company challenging the award dated 12-12-2006 passed by the 1 Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Surguja, Ambikapur in ClaimCaseNo.17/2006. 3. Brief facts of the case, according to the claimants, in short, are that on the date of acddent, i.e., 15-5-2005, at about 2 P.M., when the deceased Bali Ram was going on Village Baghima Main Road on left side of the road, at that time, a vehicle Mahindra Pickup bearing registration No.CG 15A 2644, which was being driven by non-claimant Sudhan Ram rashly and negligently, dashed him from his back. Bali Ram fell down. He was taken to the hospital where ^ (. he died during treatment. The claimants, i.e., wife and 5 daughters of the deceased Bali Ram preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs. 18,05,OOO/-. 4. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,30,000/- in favour of the claimants holding liability on the non-claimants to satisfy the award jointly and severally. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company has contended that undisputedly the driver of the light goods carriage vehicle was having a licence for 20 years, which was issued under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act, which provides that in the case of other than a transport vehicle, the licence will be issued for 20 years or upto the age of 50 years of the licence holder, whichever is earlier. But the Claims Tribunal has given a finding that the driver of the vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence considering the laden weight ofthe vehicle. 6. No doubt that the vehicle, which was a Bajaj Delivery Van, was insured under a package policy for Zone C goods carrying commercialvehicle (other than three-wheeler) and, therefore, it was a transport vehicle for which a licence for three years under Section 14(2)(a) of the Act was liable to be issued but the driver was not having a licence to drive a transport vehicle. 7. In New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Prabhu Lat, (2008) 1 SCC 696, itwas held in paragraphs 30, 37 and 38 thus: ) '•^ ^! 0<' "30. Now, it is the case of the Insurance Company that the vehicle of the complainant which met with an accident was a "transport vehicle". It was submitted that the insured vehicle was a "goods carriage" and was thus a "transport vehicle". The vehicle was driven by Ram Narain, who was authorized to drive light motor vehicle and not a transport 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. 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 vehicle. The learned counsel for the tnsurance Company, referring to various provisions of the Act submitted that if a person is having licence to drive light motor vehicle, he cannot drive a 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 clear that if a vehicle is "light motor vehicle", but falls under the category of transport vehicle, the driving licence has to be duly endorsed under Section 3 of the Act. If it is not done, a person holding driving licence to ply light motor vehicle cannot ply transport vehicle. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, Ram Narain was having licence to drive light motor vehicle. The licence was not endorsed as requiredand hence, he could not have driven Tata 709 in absence of requisite endorsement and the Insurance Company could not be held liable. T 38. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. We also find that the District Forum considered the question in its proper perspective and held that the vehicle driven by Ram Narain was covered by the category of transport vehicle 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 vehicle. It is not even the case of the complainant that there was such endorsement and Ram Narain was allowed to ply transport vehicle. On the contrary, the case of the complainant was that it was Mohd. Julfikar who was driving the vehicle. To us, therefore, the Districl Forum was right in holding that Ram Narain could not havedriven the vehicle in question." 8. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Angad Koland others, (2009) 11 SCC 356, it was held in paragraphs 15, 16 and 18 thus: "15. Section 9 provides for "grant of driving licence". Section 10 prescribes the form and contents of [icences to drive which is to the following effect: "10. Form and contents of licences to dr/Ve.-(1) Every learner's iicence and driving ticence, except a driving licence issued under Section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Ceatral Government. (2) A learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall atso be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely: (a)-(c) * * . * (d) tight motor vehicle; (e)transportvehicle; (i) road roller; G) motor vehicle of a specified description." The distinction between a "light motor vehicle" and a "transport vehicle" is, therefore, evident. 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. 16. The distinction between a "transport vehicle" and a "passenger vehicle" can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 provides for duration of a period of three years in case of an effective licence to drive a "transport vehicle" whereas in case of any other licence, it may remain effective for a period of 20 years. 18. The Insurance Company examined Shri R.K. Hila, an officer of the Regional Transport Authority. The contents of his deposition, as has been noticed by the learned Tribunal in para 7 of the award, is as under: "The onus of Issue 2 is on Opposite Party 3. But they could not establish their allegation that the vehicle 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 licence to drive light motor vehicle for the period 30-7-2003 to 29-7-2023 and the vehicle involved is a light goods vehicte. It is contended that the holder of the licence had to obtain an endorsement to drive goods vehicles but it has not been established whether the vehicle involved in the accident is a goods vehicle and whether the holder of the licence was entitled to drive a goods carriage vehicle. It has also not been established that the vehicle involved was a goods carriage vehicle. ^ 0 Opposite Party 3 could not establish that the vehicle 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." 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. Different classes of vehicle have been defined in different provisions of the Mottir Vehicles Act. The "transport vehicle" is defined in Section 2(47) of the Act to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. We have noticed hereinbefore the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 41. We have also noticed the notification issued by the Central Government in this behalf. The said notification clearly postulates that a three-wheeled vehicle for transport of passengers or goods comes within the purview of Class 5 of the Table appended thereto. The licence granted in favour of the said Salim Amadbhai goes to show that the same was granted for a vehicle other than the transport vehicle. It was valid 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 licence to drive a transport vehicle will be effective for a period of three years whereas in the case of any other vehicle it can be issued or renewed for a period of 20 years from the date of issuance or renewal. The fact that the licence was granted for a period of 20 years, thus, clearly shows that Salim Amadbhai, driver of the o 7 vehicle, was not granted a valid driving licence for driving a transport vehicle." 10. In view of the above discussions, we are of the firm opinion that the appellant/insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 11. Therefore, we allow the miscellaneous appeal and hold that the appellant/insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and that part ofthe impugned award is set aside. We direct that the owner of the vehicle shall pay the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Remaining part of the impugned award is not interfered with. There shall be no order as to costs. I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal