THEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT^IASFUR M.A.No. c6, /2002 APPELLANT ^ 1^'/-''(V-.-'' \^^/$y .^K^ ^••''A.^'^' ^y .-y.'""" ^ti^.-'' —Vei-sus— *•' EESPONDENTS: qj lational Insuranee Company Ltd. Station Road Durg, throu^i its Offioial Signatdiy - Branoh Manager, I Taha Comp}e;x,Priyadarshni Nagar,Bilaspur. i iBai,- W/o Jagdish Yadav, Aged about 45 years, R/o Vmage-Barela,Tehsil-] Dure. Barela. g-2. 5 -Claiinant -, shanLal R/o Village-Barela, Tehsil-Barela Duig ( C.G.) ?ner- Lamesh Kumar Sahu, S/o Dukhu Ram Sahu, RAiMudpar, P.S. Gllumkaa Rajnandgaon (C.G.) - Driver - u i'? iR'Eii:': 'v'. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEmGLES ACT. 1988. XI-HC-78 3n^rwR-fi+ (raT3I1^Tsht][ct) HWWI shWvh 'S^ •^WM<i, w^ww, fsldiuy . M- A- MO. (T&,' Wj; 2002_ o7 3ll^i'l isitn (l^3P^) B^iraTHfersii^T 1S/02/200? Shri Ati Asgar, oounsei for| Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel fc|- and 2 Klshanlai (owner). RespondentNo. 3 (driver)] Leamed counsel for ths disposed of finally at the stage of^dm Heard. Brief facts are that o( MP-24/C 2614 being driven by tumed turtie causing injuries tc^ passengers/claimants preferred | iearned Additional Motor Aooidetit common orderdated 3.10.2001 as under:- (d) Ciaimant-Shyam [oompensatlon aw) Claimant-Ramji, awarded Rs.3,000| Claimant-Smt. R|; [compensation aw( Claimant-Chhedi [compensation awj It is not djsputed by the that the ill-fated Minibus was und on the ciate ofthe accident. The| v/ere passengers in the Mini. bu| cni<<Fci<fl-< *fii<iTffteA<Ri<^i< ^ari^iTsn^r |the appellant/insurer. respondents No. 1 Ram (claimant) is absent. parties pray that this appeal may be iission. , 1.12.1997, a. Minibus bearing No. r^spondent No. 3, upon bursting ofa tyre, the claimanVpassengers. The injured applications for compensation. The Claims Tribuna!, Bemetara passed a jndawarded compensation tothevictims, 1/98-: Sunder, Claim Case No: arded Rs.25,000/-with interest.] 3]aim , Cas° No. 2/98-[coropensation f-with interest.] am Bai, Claim Gase No, 14/98- irded Rs.92,500/-viifhjnterest.] Singh, Claim Case No. 17/98- arded Rs.4,000/- with interest] eamed counsel for the appeliantyinsyrer: era policy of. insurance by tt'ieappellant fact that the clalmants tnentioned. ahove^ s and sustained injuries due tothe bys XI-HC-78 jiti'&T ^I f^IW ^v\ a.n^r stiuich *<iHcii a>*fr9i T5? ri<iqiCI<); »fll<H'16, fc|dltili< rT^-.'B..A;.^.0.;..(%J ?rr 2002- 3n^?T craw (l?^3^^) ?T(ITW(lf?(T-m^T z- turning turtle and that the re^; iicence for a'riving light motor counsel for the appellart also willing to pay the entire Accment Claims Tribunal. • T'ne oniy point urged b\| thls appeai is that since Ramef Minibus did not possess a va] veh'des or heaw motor vehiclfes drive a light motor vehioie, the if in accordance with the provisiorts of Iviotor Vehicles Act, 1988 have granted.the right to the Atinibus i.e. Kishanlai, responipe under the avi'ard. antl On the other hand. respondents No. 1 & 2 i.e. the[ accident was in no manner attit the driver and occurred solely that bursting of a tyre being ar| the driver not possessing appeliant/insurer could neither be given ihe right to recover i|! Reliance was placed on para-f counsel for the appellant. ^i^T^lt'i WT^ft' ^' te^9' <^)-KT< ^srf^TSil^T jpondent No.S/driver had a vaiid driving |vehicies are also not dlsputed. Learned (jontended that the Insurance Company is compe|isation as awarded by the learned Motor the learned counsel for the appellant in i^h Kumar Sahu, the driver of the ill fated |id driving licence for driving commeroisl vehiclts bLt possessed on!y a valid Iteence to 'surer had satisfaotorily provajits defence ofSection-149 read with sub-Section (7) therefore the learned M.A.C.T. ought to tnsurer to recover from the owner of the )ni(lent No. 2 the compensation paid by it Reliance was plaoed or| National Snsyrance Companv Llmited Vs.Swaran_Sinah_& others reborted in (200413 Suereme Coyrt Cases IShri P.P. Sahu, iearned oounsel for ctaimant and owner has argued that the (ibutable to any negligence on the part of cfue to the bursting of a tyre. It was urged unforeseen cause havina no nexus with the requisite t/pe of licenoe, the ^void its liability to pay compensation nor flhe same from the owner of the vehicle. -p9 of the case law cited by the learned XI-HC-78 *II*ICTI sh*lich 35g'^?raRTT, ts-rflu'is, RiciK-iy M. ^. ^o- <n,, ^ 200^ 311^1 >4a«h(tc<t3's"<dT) 3II^T?iTf?;(Ni TOT 311^1 sbtli* TOnwHfersn^r "—3 <til<<tCT<fl-1 >ll*<dTfffet^t'<R]t<;l< iisri^iTsn^r Having heard rival conten) Case No. 1S8 and the testimonl the offending vehicle, (Responj oiaimants Shyam Sunder, RamjiJ were trave'ling in the ill-fated M upon sudden bursting of tyre o| suddenly applied breaks, the Mj matter, I am of the oonsidered c] dueto an unforeseen cause, i.e. ^ In Nationai Insurance Col has dealt with such a situation in ions, I have perusec the reoord of C'aim / of Ramesh Kumar Sahu, the driver of ient No.3) and ateo the testimony of Smt. Ram Bai and Chhedhi Singh who inlbus which clear!'/ demonstrates that the ili fated Minibus vvhen the driver libus turned turtle. In this view of the pinion that She accident occurred soielv •udden bursting of tyre. Tipany Limited (supra), the Apex Court 3ara-89. "Seotion 3 of the Act cai effective drivins iicence fd drive. Section 10 ofthe prescribe forms of drivij vehictes mentioned sub-1 various types of vehicles (\ licence for one or more o| (b) motorcycle v'/ith ge^ vehicle,(e) transpon vehic of other specifled descripti the Act defines various c< in broad types mentioned are "goods carriage", "he motor vehic!e", "invalid ca "medium goods vehicle" "motor-cab", "motorcycle" "semi-trailer", "tourist vet vehicle". !n claims for co of breaches Vi/ith regard t< for consideration before driving licence for "motorc vehicle] for which he has ! a hoider of driving licence driving a "maxi-cab" "motc |ts an obligation on a driver to hoic an the type of vehiole which he intends to lAct enables the Central Government to [ig lieences for various categories of ^ection (2) of the said Section. The [escribed for which a driver may obtain a them are: (a) motorcycle without gear, |r, (c) invaiid carriage,(d; light motor jle, (f) road roller, and (g) motor vehicie |on. The definition c.'ause h Section 2 of ^tegories of vehicles vi'hich are covered in sub-section (2) of Section 10. They javy goods vehtole", "heavy passenger 1'riage", "!ight motor vehicle", "maxi-cab", "medium passenger motor vehicie", "omnibus", "private ser"ice vehicle", ^icle", "tractor", 'lrailer" and "transport |npensation for accidents, various kinds t the conditions of driving licences arise t|ie Tribunat as a person possessing a :t/cle wjthout gear', [sic may be driving a i^o licence. Cases may also arise where for "!ight motor vehicle" is found to be )r-cab" or "omnibus" for which he has no XI-HC-78 tnycnshflicb T5? •^l'ilM'i), »Tl1+1'IS, (slrtlU^ ^^A-NO..%/^. —tW!2002- ^ll^l >iaw (yti^si^iT) isn^T q;T RFIW ^iT3n^r.s()i<[cb ^Rrrw CTfN W^T —- 4)l<4l<n<fl'l HHT^ff ^" fe^t' <f^l^:,l< iisrfwrsn^T Kvr, iioence. In each case, decision has to be taken I ijcence for une fy'pe of v^ vehicle, was the main o( faots. it is found that the some other unforeseen failures and similar otherl not possessing requisite allowed to avoid its oond'tions conceming dri\( bn evidence led before the Tribunal, a (vhether the fact of the driver possessing ^hicle but found drivlng another type of contributory' cause of accident. !f on lacoident was caused solelv because of |or intervening causes like mechanical lcauses having no nexus with the driver |type of licence, the 'nsurer will not be ^bility mereiy for technical breaoh of ing licence". Applying the !av/ laid do'|t circumstanGes Qf the case, 1 am| the driver of the Minibus posses^ and.not for any commerciai vel^i was not attributabte to any negligl No. 3-Ramesh Kumar Sahu bilit taiwtihg of a tyre whioh the own^r good condit'on, the breach of ti-|E Tundamental djd not in any mann| and therefore the insurer cannot and the present oase is not a recover compensation from the o( vn by the Apex CourS to the facts and of the considered opinion that although ed a valid driving licence only for L. M.V. icle or mini bus, yet since the accident 3nce on the part ofthe driver/respondent jt occurred soleiy due to the sudden of the vehicle was required to keep in e condition of driving licence not being T contribute to the cause of the accident avoid its liabiiity to pay compensation ttlt-. rit case to grant the insurer y right to !n this view of the matter, [nthe result.the appeal is dismis yner of the.^/ehicie. |the contention of the appellant must fail. fcee1-—^-- Sd/- DUip Kaosaheb Deshmukh Judge /-t