'.-^i'' '* IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR l^ ?^ y% <-^ ^ .^., ^-'. w^ ^^^^^.lOJ^ fcJ'®^|^j?| APPELLANT ('Non-ApDlicant No.2} RESPONDENTS (Claimants) •^ ^^9' / s>^ -'W A '<?'%' .,o>~,.riy"//6 ^y07 Non-ApDlicants 1-AT01//LA". w'^ Misc. Appeal (C) No. l^ /2011 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its ' Sr. Divisional Manager, Divisional Office- Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.). Versus 1. Jairam Vishwakarma, S/o late Musaee Vishwakarma, aged about 73 years, 2. Mulki Bai, , W/o Jairam Vishwakarma, aged about 68 years, 3. Kantiram, S/o late Subran, aged about 21 years, 4. Gangaram, S/o late Subran, aged about 19 years, 5. Leelawati, O^o late Subran, aged about 11 years, 6. Chhotu, S/o late Subran, aged about 5 years, 7'. Smt. Kaleshiya, W/o late Subran, aged about 33 years, Note: All the Respondents No.l to 7 above are by caste-io/?ar,r/o village Bisahi (Navapara), Police Post Bhatgaon, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.). Respondents No. 5 and 6 are minor, represented through their guardian Respondent No.3 Kantiram & Respondent No.6 minor js represented through natural guardian and mother Respondent No.7 Smt. Kaleshiya. 8. Smt. Kamla Devi, W/o late Om Prakash Singh, aged about 39 years, 9. Sushil Kumar Singh, S/o late Om Prakash Singh, aged aboyt 22 years, 10. Ku. Chhaya Singh, D/o late 0~m Prakash Singh, aged about 20 years, 11. Ku. Jyoti Singh,/D/o late Om Prakash Singh, aged about 15 years, 12. Ku. Muja Singh, D/o late Om Prakash Singh, aged about 13 years, •• l. 13. Ku. Rekha Singh, D/o late Om Prakash Singh, aged about 12 years, 14. Ku. Seema Singh, D/o late Om Prakash Singh, aged about 09 years, Note: The Respon^dents No.ll to 14 are minors and are represented through their natural guardian and mother Respondent No.8 Smt. Kamla Devi, All are residents of Pragati Bihar, SECL Colony, Bhatgaon, P.S. Bhatgaon, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.). 15. Reliance General Insurance Co., Bhopal (M.P.), APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.1988. \ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH. BILASPUR DB: Hon»bleI. M. QUDDU8I & Hon*Me G. MmHAJUDDIW, JJ APPBLLANT: RE8PONDBIIT8: M. A(CI. No.168 /2011 The Oriental Insurapace Compaay Ltd., rs. Jafcrain Vishniikarma & ofhers MISC. APPEAL UNDBR SBCnOM 173 C THB MOTOR VBHICLBSACT. 1988 Appearance: Mr, Ratan Pusty, counsel for fhe appeUaat. Dr. Rajesh Paadey, counsel for respoiidents l to 7. Mr. Saurabh Sharma, counsel for rcspondent No. 15. Per I.M. QUDDUSI. J. 1. ORAL ORDBR (27.06.2011) Heard on I.A,No.l for condoiiatbn of delay ia Jfilmg fhe appeal. OflBce rcport shows that fhere is delay of 71 days ia fiUng fhis appeal. Haviag heard learaed counsd for (he appellant aad for the reasons stated in fhe appHcatioa, the delay is condoned. AppUcation is aUowed, 2. With tihie consent of fhe learaed counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finaBy. 3. This appeal has beea filed by fhe Insurance Company agahist the impugaed awanl dated 26.07.2010 passed by the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tr&unal (FTC), Surajpur, Distt. Sai^uja (C.G) in Claim Case No. 190/2007 in so far as it relates to unposiag fhe liabflity upon it to pay coinpensation- Besides fhis, fhe quaatum has also been chaUenged as permission u/s 170 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act was granted by fhe Clauxis TribuxiaL 4. Brief facts of fhe case as per the version of claimants arc fhat on 10.06.2007.; deceased Subraa was retiuimxg to his ^,,^—^^\ -;J;f;!i"X i*'^. ^" ^..A '^\ '^s^--,c 'i^,.^^^ s. home town Nawapara by ridiag his motoxbike bearmg Regn.No.C.G.15-A/2277. On ffae way at about 6»00 p.m. non-applicaiit no.l Omprakash who was allegedfy driviag fhe motorcycle bearmg Regn.No. C.G15-C/9672 ia a rasli and negUgent maxiner dashed fhe motorcycle ofthe deceased fix>m opposite direction as a result ofwhich he feU down acid sustaiaed serious head mjury, He was brought to SECL Hospital Bhatgaon for primary toreatment and ffaereafter he was referred to Central Hospital Bishrampur aaid then he was shifljed to Distodct Hospital, Axabikapur, However, on 11.06.2007, lookmg to the critical condition he was bemg brought to fhe Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur but he died oa fhe way. At the time of accident, fhe deceased was aged about 35 yeara. He was working as Carrier ia SECL, Bhatgaon, and was earaing Rs»13,000/- per xnonfh. The clainiaats beiag dependents/legal represexitatives have filed claim petition u/s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for fhe award of total coinpensation ofRs.46,10;000/son various heads. Learaed Claiins Tribunal haviag regard to fhe &cts srituation has awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,03,000/- which fhe claimaats are entitied to receive fix>m the non-applicaiite. ft0\ We have perused fhe records ofthe Tribmial and found that fhe iasuraace poUcy of fhe two wheelers was valid oa the date of accident which was made under Liability Only PoBcy for Zone-B Motorcycle wifh fhe follCTvmg notoe, t(Drivers Clause : Aiiy person micludmg iasuiied : Provided fhat a person driving holds an eflfective driving Ucense at flie tuxie of fhe accident and is not disquaUfied from holdiag or obtaiiung sueh a Mcease. Providcs also tibiat a person holding an effective leamer's Ucease may also drive fhe vehicle qnd tlaat such person satisfies the requirements ofRiale-3 ofttie Central Motor Vehides Rules 1989.^ The Investigator of fhe Insurance Ck>mpany T. S. Dhonzal bas certified the leaxiierys Ucense of Ompmteash Siagh vMe Ex.D/1. A perusal of EX.D/ 1 shows fhat the recoid ef the ^ "^ RTO concemed was iaspected by the Investigator of the Insuraace Company who has written a letter on 14.10.2008 to fhe Branch Maaager of the Oriental Insurance Compaay Ltd. Axubikapur fhat Oxaprakash Siagh was issued learaer>s Ucense on 01.12,2004 for driving Mfotorcycle plus LMV onty which was valid upto 31.05.2005. Thercafter it was renewed up to 03.12.2005 with effect fsom 04.06.2005 and agam. renewed upto 22.11.2007 with effect from 23.05.2007. The date of accident is 10.06.2007 at about 6.00 p.m., but the document was not proved by aoy witaess firorn fhe R.T.O. office conceraed. It has also not been proved whether on tte date of accident, fhe driver had already obtaiaed a permaaent Ucense to drive the motpreycle or WBS haviag only learaer's license. 8. With regard to leamer's licence, HonT^le the Suprcme Court m. case of Natlonat Iwsmrcmee €0. LW. -vs- Swarn Slitgh and others (2004) 3 SCC 297 has held ia Para 93 as under: "93. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 piovides for grant of leanier?s licence. [See Section 4(3), Section 7(2), Section 10(3) and Section 14.} A leamer's license is, thus, also a licence VTifhia the ineaning of £he provisions offhe said Act It caanot^ fhercfore, be said that when a vehicle is bemg driven by a leamer subject to fhe conditions mentioned ia the licence, he would not be a person whp is not aduly licensed" resulting in conferrmg a right on fhe iasurer to avoid fhe claim of the fhird party. It camiot be said fhat a person holdiag a learaer's Ucence is not entifled to drive fhe vehicle. Even if fhere exists a condition in fhe contract of iasurance fhat the vehicle cannot be driven by a person holding a leanier's Ucence, (he same would run counter to the provisions of Section 149(2) of fhe said Act." / Besides fhis, fhe question of contoributoiy Qegligence as raised m this appeal has also not been considered by fhe Tribunal. y ^^i^ ^ - Rao 9. In view of fhe above, fhe matter requires reconsideration at fhe end offhe Tribunal for decision aJ&esh. 10. Hence, we attow this appeal ia part aad remit the matter back to the Tdbiiaal for decision afresh ia the Ught of fhe observations made above. Needless to mention ftiat the pardes shaU be allowed to amend fhe pleadiags, adduce furfher evidence, file fhe documents or get tfae documents vert&ed etc and thereafter fhe decision shaU be taken afpesh by fhe Claums Tnbunal. The pardes shall appear before the Tribimal on 26th Jidy, 2011. The rccords of the Tribunal shaU be sent back forthwifh, II. In fhe resirit, fhe appeal is aUpwed ia part. No order as to cost(s), ^^ ^^-r" Sd/- G. Mmhajuddin Judge ^A^