^J IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL rCINO. H5 /2011 w^" MISC. APPEALUNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 APPELLANT :- Reliance General Insurance Company /INSURER / Limited, Through : its Legal Officer, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. 301, 302 Corporate House 169 RNT Marg, Opposite Jhabua Tower, Indore (M.P.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS :- .1, Punni Bai Wd/0 Late Raju Yadav, aged AAIMANTS ^" about 28 years, Karan s/o Late Raju Yadav, aged ^. ^ about 09 years, \\\ ,,^^f"^ _ -— " 7—" :°^v •:^':"^'^ 3.,/Liladhar s/o Late Raju Yadav, aged <"i ^ about 07 years, ^.^..^^^ •\\ ^'"^^" ...-"^ ^^ ^^"..^'^^ 4y Ku. Summan D/o .Late Raju Yadav, >**' ^!^^'^ 'O^" 6' aged about 02 years, Respondent no. 2, 3 & 4 being minor represented through mother Punni Bai / Respondent no.l 5^ Bhulau s/o Late Hariram Yadav, aged about 65 years, 6. Rjvantin W/o Shri Bhulau yadav, aged ^/ about 54 years, Respondent No. 1 to 6 R/o Village Ufra , Post Office Jhit , District Durg (C.G.) DRIVER ^. OWNER 7. Mithlesh S/o Munna Lal Dewangan, R/o Lakhe Nagar (Near Etectricity Office), Raipur, P.S. Purani Basti, Raipur, Tahsit & District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 8. Mahseh & CompanY, Through its Proprietor: Shri Mahesh Dodwani, R/o Lakhe Nagar, P.S. Purani Basti, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). aj The Oriental Insurance Company Limited , Through its Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance company limited, Kutchery Chowk, , Jail Road , Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ^' APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 4.16.000/- FIXED COURT FEE OF Rs. 15/-v^' //sh^.\ f ^eSh 1 1 ^»^-|j 1 "^....J/ Y-SS&^ HI6M COURT OF CHHArTIS6<WH AT BtLASPUR &IVISION BQslCH: HON'BLEMR. I.M.QU&&USI& HON'BLE MR.6ULAM MINH^JUDDXN. JJ M.A(C)No. 179/2011 Appellant Rcsoondents Appellants ftesoondcnts Reliance ©eneralInsurance Company Ltd Vs Punni Bai & others & M.A. (O No.473/2011 Vs fteliance ©eneralInsurance Company Ltd Chumman Bai wd others ^MSGt''- \ Saurabh Sharma, Advoart-e for the appellants in bcth the cppeals. Wr. Sudhir Agarwal, Advoc<ri'e for respondent-Oriental Insyrance Company None for other respondents thoi^h served, OR&m (Oral) (18th July, 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. M.A. (c) No.179/11 and M.A. (c) No.473/11 are bein9 dispos&d of by this common order as both these appeals arose out of the same cicciderrt, 3- The above appeals have been filed by the appellant-Insyrance Company against the awards dated 08.11.2010 passed by the !eamed t0th Additionat Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ftaipur (for short' 'the Claims Trilxinal') m Claim Case Nos.139/09 & 140/09 allowin9 claim o^pdcflrt-ions, awardin^ compensart-ion to the claimants and fastening liability on the appellant herein to scrt-isfythe award. 4. Fact-s of the case, in brief, are that on 27.11.2008 at about 8.1S Bhagwot Sahu, ftcyu Yadav & Santrflan were going towards Hakli from @omchi on the motorcycle bearing registration number G607-LC-1792. On the way near Villa9e Bana, d vehicle bearing ^istrotion nymber C@04-JA-9434, being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed the said mfftorcycte as a result all of them sustained 9rievous mjuries. Bha9wat' Sahu and Raju Yadav succumbed to the injuries sustained by them in the said accident, The claimants have filed two separote claim cases before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensorfion to the tune of Rs.4,97,000/- each under various heads on ^l the ground that on account of untimely death of the deceased persons, they have suffered loss of income. 5. The Claims Trjbunal, after hearing the part-ies and apppeciating the evidence available on record, part-ially allowed both the claim applicotions vide two separote awards and awarded a sum of fts.4,16.000/- in Claiin Case No.139/09 & fts.3,29.000/- in Claim Case No.140/09 and fastened the liability on the appellant herein to pay satisfy the awords. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parfries. We have also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 7. R6ferrin9 to proviso to Section 14 (2) of the Motor Vehictes Act, 1998 which provides that 'ticence to drive a tremsport whicle coviymg gowSsof clmgeriMs oy hazowdws nature shall be effective for a pe^iod of one year', teamed counsel for the appettant-Insurance Company flu*9ued that drjyjna licence tssued to the driver of offending vehicle was for a period of 20 years and thus, he was not having valid and effective drivin9 licence to drive the offending vehicle and therefore the appellant Insurance Compcmy is not liable to pay any compensation as there was breach of condition of insurance poticy. 8. In the matter of Oriental Insurancc Co. Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol & others reported in (2009) 11 SCC 3S6 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: "Althoiyh the definition of tight motor vehicte' brir^s iwithin jts umbr'cge both tttronsport vehicle" or ttomnibus", indisputably, a dj^tjnctten b&twecn an effective driving licence 9ranted for transport vehicle and passenger ntotor* vehiele exists. The distinetion between o 'light rootw vehieSe' and a 'transpwt vehicle' «s evident. A trar»portvehjcle ma/ be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving tha same, a dtetirsct jjc.ance js required to bs <A>tained. The distinction between a "tnaisport vriiicle" <md Q ttpas$en9er vehicle" can aJgo be noticed from Saction 14 of thc Aet. Section 14 (2) provides for duration of a period of three yecrs in case of an effective driving licence to drive a ttransport vehicla', whereas iri case of any other licence, it may remain effective far o period of twenty years. Tlius, it is evident that a transport vehiele may' be a Sjght motor vchide but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtdned......." 9. In the case of Ne«»India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal report-ed jn 2008 (t) SCC 696 it VNOS held thus.- "30. Now, it is the case of the Irtsurwce Company that the vdiicle of the ' conriplainant which met wjth w aceident was a "transprt yehicSe'Y It was submitted that the insured vehiclc was a <>9ood carrioge" and woes thus a lltt?€8nspor'tvdfiiclew. The vehicle w@s driven by Rero Narojn, i^ho was authorized to drive (iflht motor vehicle and not a tran^ort ^ vehicle. Since the driver had no licence to drtve tr<m^)ort vehicie in absence of necesscry endorsement in his ticence to that sffect, he could not have driven Tata 709 and when that vehicle met with an acddent, the Insurance Conipany could not be made liabte to poy compensation." 10.In the mortter of New Indta ^ssurance Co. Itd. Vs. Roshonben ftaheffitBisha Fakir and another reported in 2008 (3) T.A.C. 20 (SQ the Hon'ble Supr^me Court- repellin9 the submission of learned counsel fw the respondent thflrt- it did not matter as to whether the drivin9 licence issued for auto rickshaw wxs adapted for carrying passengers or goods has held that the driver was not holding an effective drivm9 licence to drive auto rickshaw deiivery van. 11. Indisputably, in the instant case the offendlng vehaie was tlw trculer, a commercial transport- vehicle, and the licoice isajed to the driver was for a period of 20 years, as admitt-ed by the owner of offendin9 vehicle himself in the writt-en stort-ement. Thus. it is clear that the Heence is issued for the purpose of a vehicle other than a transport- vehicle as had it been granted for transport vehicle, the twure thereof could not have exceeded to three years, as per Section 14 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, we are of the opinion that on the dote of accident the driver of offending vehicle was not having valid <& effective drivin9 licence and hence, the cypeltflmt-Insurance Company should not hwe been held liable to poy compensation, ^- 12.For the fore9oing reasons, we allow this appeal, set aside the p,art of the impugned awards by which the appellant-Insurance Compcmy has been held liable to pay compensotion and hold thort- liabjlity to pay compensatiwi would be ^if the owner of offending vehicJe. It is also directed 1+i<xt if the GGmount deposited by the appellant has not been disbursed so far to the claimants. the appellant shall be allowed to withdrow the same wid if the same has been withdrovwi by them, it will be open for the appeltant to recovep it from the owner of offending vehicle. It is also made clear thatthe claimants are fpee ta execute the awcrd c^ainst the owner of offending vehicle. 13. A copy of this order be placed in M.A. (c) No.473/2011. 14, Certified copy as per rvles, G. Minhajuddin Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Judge y K"