.;rti?'»^^V<»)d<i»^^ -u>^-u-L.-^-\.-u-v^'YAri^\^\j<.''o-y~.^-^'L''^'\ a^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR (C.Gl M.A.(Cl 334 /2010 T ?ls ^,n( APPELLANT NON APPLICANT No.2 ^•\G^v National Insurance Co. Ltd., Through : Manager, Akash Ganga Complex, G.E. Road, SupelaBhilai Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPQNDENTS APPLICANTS 1 s !^' Anil Prasad Gupta aged 25 Yrs S/o Chandradhar Prasad Gupta R/o Kandai Bahar, Thana-Farsa Bahar, Distt. Jaspur (C.G.) Present Address- House No.86A Maitry Vihar, Radhikanagar Supela, Thana-Supela, Distt-Durg 2. Abhishek Jain aged 25 Yrs S/oAshokJain R/o House No. 3, Road No. 7/ B- Phase-I, Maitry Nagar Resali Navai, Thana- Navai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3. Bhilai Cargo Movers Through -Director, Ashok Jain R/o- 5 Tara Complex, Powerhouse Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) APPEAL U/S 173 MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THB AWARD DATED 25/11 /09 PASSED BY 9TH ADDITIpNAL M.A.C.T.( F.T.C. ) DURG. IN CLAIM CASB NQ. 78/2009 ANIL PRASAD GUPTA V/S ABHISHESLJAINAND OTHERS APPEAL VALUED 15,92,831 /- C.F. PAID Rs. 15/- ..2.. HIGH COURT^FCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi and Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Appellant Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.334 of 2010 National Insurance Co. Ltd. versys Resoondents Anil Prasad Gupta and others Present: Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for the appellant. Shri A.K.Patit, counsel for respondent No.1. No one appears for other respondents. MiscellaneQus ApBeaLurider Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ORAL ORDER (Passed on 1st March, 201 1) Per I.M. Quddusi. J.: Despite service of notice, no one appears for the owner of the Santro Car, i.e., respondent No.3. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties are heard finally. 3. This appeal has been preferred by National Insurance Company challenging the award dated 25-11-2009 passed by the 9 Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Durg in Claim Case No.78/2009. The insurance company has challenged the award on the question of imposing liability to pay compensation upon it by the Claims Tribunal. 4. Brief facts, according to the ctaimant, in short, are that on the date of accident, i.e., 26-11-2007, the claimant Anil Prasad Gupta ^f^^ /y^^^. ^r ^^^ i- 'asy-i'|j Y"~"^y ^-^ h'NlNN- was coming home on his motor cycle TVS Max-100 bearing registration No.CG 14-5010. At about 5:30 P.M., on getting green signal at Ghari Chowk, Supela, he was crossing the road. At that time, a Santro Car bearing registration No.CG 06 A 7470, coming triwards Power House, despite there being red signal on the chowk, was driven rashly and negligently and the motor cycle of the claimant was dashed by it. The Santro Car was being driven by non-claimant Abhishek Jain. The claimant sustained grievous injuries on his person in the accident. He was hospitalised in the District hlospital, Durg by the Traffic Police for treatment. Thereafter, heremained under treatment in other hospitals also. He has also undergone a major operation in Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai. He has sustained permanent disability in his right leg. The incident was reported to the Police Station Supela. The claimant preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.19,65,000/-. 5 . The Claims Tribunal a\A^arded compensation of Rs. 15,92,8317- in favour of the claimant holding liability to pay the same on the non- claimants jointly or severally. 6. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company has submitted that driver of the Santro Car was not authorised to drive the car as he was having driving licence to drive private light motor vehicle only and not the goods or transport vehicle. He has further submitted that there is not only breach of conditions of policy of insurance but the provisions of Section 14 of the Act have also been violated and in these ,.® uoipes-qns siqi jepun Ajidxa s^i Buipueisq^iMiou 'lieqs eoueoii BuiAup Aj8A9 }e{\} popiAOJd xxxxxxxxx (11) '(sjee^ Ayij) p e6e eqi suiBHe uosjed qon8 LioiqM uo e^ep eqi jiiun (g) jo :|BM9U9J jo enssi i^ons p e^ep eqi LU04 sjeaA AiueM^ p poued e jo^ eAipe^e eq (y) -p9J9L|} IBM9U9J '9q ABLU 9SBO Q^} se 'jo enssj p eiep eq^ uo (sjeeA Ayij.) p 96e eqi peuieue iou seq 'pejaqi iBMeuej uo JQ AiieuiBuo j9L|}!9 'Qoueoii 9L|i Buiuie^qo uosjed eqi ji (i) -'80U9011 J8L|10 AUB JO 8SBO ui (q) pue :snqe||As pequosejd eqi p esjnoo jeqsejpj Aep euo seo6j9pun jeAup e^ ieqi uoiiipuoo sqi 01 pefqns eq ||BL|S jo9J9L|} iBMeuej pue jeaA euo jo poued e joj eAipejp eq ejnieu snopje2eti jo snoje6uep p spoo6 6uiAjjeo epiqeA ijodsueji B 8AUp 0} 90U9011 p eseo oq} ui. ieqi pepiAojj :sjeeA 9ojL<} p poued e jo^ aAipe^e oq 'e|0!L|8A ijodsueji e QAUp 0} eoueoii e p eseo 9L|i ui (e) -'IIBL^S PV SIMl JOpUn P8M8UQJ JO penssi eouooii BuiAup y (3) •Qoueoii p enssi p e^ep eqi LUOJ^ sqiuouj xis ^o pouod e jo.t SAipe^a eq 'py S!L|I P suoisjAojd je^o eqi o^ loefqns '||eqs py SNI JQpun panssi QOUBOII s,j9Ujee| V (O -'S9|3iqSA JOIOLU 9AUp oi se3ue3i| ^o Aouejjno -^^, :snq^ speej py ^Ml P ^i. uoiioeg •^. •(08) OZ 'O'V'i (£)800Z 'JOMloue pue J|>|BJ eysueiuei^ey uequeysoy -SA •pn -03 eouejnssv eipu| MSN ui pnoo euojdns e|q<uo|-| aqi p iu9Lu6pnf eqi uo peoeid si eoueiiey •Auedujoo eouejnsui 9L|i uo lueLuiep eqi 0} uoiiesuedujoo sqi Aed oi Aiiiiqeii Cuiueise^ ui pejje seq leunqui SLUIBIO eqi 'seoueisujnojio £ ^^^^^^ •^^. ^%^ ,iP^^- ^ ..'y'W •;.;.. ^1-, ^ hlBllfNMUI^ \ i.. continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry." 8. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Angad Kol and others, (2009) 11SCC 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, a distinct licence is required to be obtained. The distinction between 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......." 9. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Prabhu Lal, 2008 (1) SCC 696, it was held thus: "30. Now, it is th^ 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 "good 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 ^^^^•^^ ^^'" Jt'^ ^ —^-y have driven Tata 709 and when that vehicle met with an accident, the Insurance Company could not be made liable to pay compensation." 10. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, repelling the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that it did not matter as to whether the driving licence issued for auto rickshaw was adapted for carrying passengers or goods, has held that the driver was not holding an effective driving licence to drive auto rickshaw delivery van. 11. The licence was granted to the driver of the Santro Car for motor cycle with gear and light motor vehicle issued on 4-6-2007, which is valid upto 3-6-2027, therefore, the licence was issued for 20 years to drive a private light motor vehicle and motor cycle with gear. In thecertificate of registration ofthe Santro Car bearing registration No.CG 06 A 7470, it has been registered as LMV (Taxi). In the insurance policy also, it is clear from the certificate of insurance that the same is of passengers carrying commercial vehicle. 12. 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 3 years as per Section 14(2)(a) of the Act, and 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 the offending vehicle and when that ^2 ^.^^:_^JS not be held liable to pay the compensation. 13. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, we allow the miscellaneous appeal and hold that the appellanVinsurance company is not liable to pay the 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 impugned award is of the owner of the Santro Car. In case, any amount deposited by the appetlanVinsurance company has been withdrawn by the claimant, it will be open for the appellanVinsurance company to recover the same from the owner of the SantroCar. However, if the amount, so deposited, has not been withdrawn so far, the appellant/insurance company shall be allowed to withdraw the same. Rest of the conditions and findings given in the impugned award are hereby confirmed. It is hereby clarified that claimant is free to execute the award against the owner of the Santro Car. —-^L Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal