»..^ -•E-..s'"'~;; HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR SB: Hon'bie Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, M. A. (C)No.1227 of 2005 APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS Victor Tirkey and another. Versus Sheela Bai and others. ORDER For Pronouncement ofOrder 21 .03.2011 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ./:^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, M.A. No.1227of2005 APPELLANTS 1. Vtctor Tirkey S/o Johan Tirkey, aged about 55 years, Occupation, Driver, r/o Dipatoli, Jashpur, District Jashpur, C.G. (DRIVER) , 2. Ramratan Bajaj, s/o Late Ram Daya! Bajaj.aged about 52 years, r/o village Kunkuri, District Jashpur, C.G. rOWNER) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Sheela Bai, Wd/o Shivpujan Say Paikra, aged about 22 years, Occupation- Household. 2. Pawan Say Paikra, S/o Late Shivpujan Say Paikra, (Minor), aged about 3 months, through natural guardian & mother Sheela Bai. 3. Lohar Say Paikra s/o Dhedhu Say, aged about60years. 4. Dhulmani Paikra w/o Lohar Say Paikra, aged about 52 years. All by caste Kanwar, r/o village Pandripani, Tehsil Kunkujri, DistricS Jashpur, C.G. (CLAIMANTS') . 5. The Branch Manager, The Orisnta! tnsurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Raigarh, District Raigarh, C.G. (INSURER) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1888 Appearance: Shri S. K. Tiwari, counsel for the appellante. Shri S. R. Sinha, coynsel for respondents No. 1 to 4. Shri P. Dutta, counsei for respondent No.5 ORDER (Passed on 2^.03.2011) Thls is an appeal by the owner and driver against Ifte order dated 30.08.2005 passed by the Wlotor Accidents Claims Tribuna!, Jashpur in Claim Case No.71/2004 awarding total compensation of Rs.1,94,QOO/- in a death case. SSS 2. As against the compensation of Rs.20,47,000/- sought by the respondents/ciaimants No. 1 to 4 byfiling ctaim petltion under Sectlon 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of Shivpujan in the motor accident on 23.06.2004, the Tribynal, on ciose scrutiny of the evidence, materia' placed and respective submissions made by the parties, he!d thaf on the date of incident, the driver of truck No. C.G.04 ZC 3301 (for short 'the offending truck') owned by appellant No.2 and insured by respondent No.5, rashly and negtigently driving the offending truck and dashed Shiypujan, on account of which, the death of deceased took piace and awarded Rs.1,94,000/- while fastening the liability on the appeliant/owner of the offending truck on the ground that on the date of incident appellant No.1 was not hoSding a vaiid and effective driving licence to drive the offending truck and thereby breached the policy of insurance. However, the isarned Claims Tribunal exonerated the Insurance company from its liabiiity to pay compensation on the sams ground. 3. Shri S.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the appel!anfs, vehsmently argued that in this case the iearned Claims Tribunal has wrongly held that the driver of the offending truck was not having a vafid and effective iicence and fastened the liabiiity on the appeliants whereas the driving licence was vaiid on the date of accident, according to report of R.T.O. and that report was also admitted by the insurance company. On tbese premises, he urged that since the insurance company admitted that driving licence was valid at the time of incident, appeiiant/owner of the offending truck may be exonerated from its liabilityto pay compensation. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurer, while admitting the facts that at the time of incident, the driving licence produced by the driver of offending truck was valid; offending truck was insured with fhe Orienta! insurance Company Limited and the accident took place on 23.06.2004^ produced the document i.e. driving licence marked as "Article A", which was taken on record of appea!. 5. I have heard iearned counsel for the parties at lengfh and perused the record of the learned Claims Tribunal. tn the present case, the question that arises for consideration is whether the driving iicence produced by the driver of the offending truck at the time of accident was vaiid or not. The accident took p!ace^n^23.06.2004 in which Shivpujan has died due to dash by the offending truck. The insurance company has also not disputed that at the time of accident the offending truck was not insured with it but has disputed the fact that at the time of incident, the driver of offending truck was not holdlng a valid and effective driving iicence by filing written statement before the Tribunal. However, in the present case, report of insurance investigator along with duplicate drlving iicence was filed. A bare perusal of the same cieariy revealed that the said driving licence is to drive light motor vehicle, heavy motor vehic!e and HPV and was valid upto 15.02.2004. It shows that on the date of accident, the driver of offending truck was having va!id driving licence. Again the insurance company filed the driving licence before this Court, which was marked as 'Article A" white admitting the fact that at t'ne time of accident, fhe driver was hoiding valid and effectlve driving Eicence. A perusal of the same cleariy revealed that it was renewed and its date of expiry is 19.03.2010, effective from 01.03.2004 till 28.03.2007 and again from 20.03.2007 til! 19.03.2010 whereas the accident took place on 23.06.2004. A perusal of driving iicence, it is clear that the driving licence entitles its driverto drive L.M.V., H.G.V. and H.P.V. and thatthe same was valid upto 19.03.2010 meaning thereby the driving licence was vaiid on the date of incident. 6. Having considered the facts and cireumstances of the case, since both the parties i.e. the appeilant/owner of the offending truck and insurance company have admitted the fact that at the time of incident the driving licence produced by the driver was vaiid, 1 am of the view the insurance company sha!! satisfy the award by the Tribuna! to the claimants. 7. In the resuit, the appealis ailowed. The impugned order in so far as it relates to fastening !iability on the appellant/owner of the offending truck is set aside. Since the insurer has admitted the entire fact situation, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall be satisfied by the insurer. The appellant/owner of the offending truck may initiate proceedings against ths insurer for recovery of amount paid by him, if any, to the claimants. Rest of the contents shali remain unaltered. No order as J'"'^— to costs. Y g^y. R.L. Jhanwar Judge