ssnn P, IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL fC^ N0. OF 2009 ^iPPELLANT NON-APPLICANTS ..••''..I^ ^^ ^y^y ' .„.-••'.<^'' ^-- ,,^ ~ \~? iS''^^ -•••'' >«&•" a^-' l/ 2. Laxman Prasad Sahu, S/o "" Baisakhwa, aged about 65 years, R/o Pavarjali, Police Station Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) VERSUS Jaleshwari Kurre, Wd/o Jalesh Kurre, aged about 23 years, Caste- Satnami, Jyoti Kurre, D/o Jalesh Kurre, aged about 3 years, Caste-Satnami, Minor Through his natural guardian mother Jaleshwari Kurre, Wd/o Jalesh Kurre, 3. Bodhan, S/o Kalaram Kurre, aged about 50 years, Caste-Satnami, 4. Dhanmat Bai, W/o Bodhan, aged " about 55 years, AII'R/o Village Pandotara Chowik Fasterpur, Police Station and Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5^ Haleshwar @ Hallu, S/o Bhakoli Satnami, aged about 25 years, R/o Damapur, Police Station Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) (Driver) 6./ Reliance General Insurance /' Company, Branch Bilaspur (C.G.) S SS SS Rs. 3l750,000/- Rs. 4,47,000/- Rs. 4^7,000/- Claimed before Tribunal Amount awarded by the learned Tribunal Claimed in this Memo ofAppeal MISCELLANESOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 Ei I- lu' -\ ^ HIGH COURT OF eHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT NON-APPLICANTS M.A(C)No. 805/2009 La?anan Prasad Sahu Versus Jaleshwari Kurre and others DB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL & HON'BLE SHRI R.L. JHANWAR, JJ PRESENT:- Shri P.P. Sahu, Advocate for the appellant. Shri AnU Gulati, Advocate, for the respondents No. 1 to 4. Shri Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 6. None for the respondent No. 5. ORAL ORDER (15-11-2010) Per N.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This is owner's appeal against the award.dated 17-3-2009 passed by the IInd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC), Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 26/2008. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 27-12-2007, Jalesh (since deceased) had gone to village Bhainsaguda along with his friends for performing Panthi dance on a Jeep bearing registration no. CG-10-A-0901. When he was returning, at about 1.30 a.m., a Matador bearing • registration No. CG-10-A-0901 being driven by the respondent No. 5 in a rash and negligent manner dashed the said jeep near village Silli, as a result of which, Jalesh sustained injuries and died during treatment. The claimants being legal heirs of the deceased ffled a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 clainiing Rs. 31,50,OOO/- as compensation for the death of the deceased. 3. ' Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the submissions made, evidence led and material placed, awarded Rs. ^^s" 'i*S. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 4,47,000/- in favour of the claimants fastening liability to pay the compensation upon the owner and driver and exonerating the Insurance Company on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Here before this Court, the appellant has filed a copy of driving licence. The same is taken on record. The above driving licence shows that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving Ucence to drive light motor vehicle as well as heavy goods vehicle at the time of accident. Copy of the said driving licence was supplied to the Insurance Company and the Insurance Corapany got it verified and obtained licence particulars from the concerned R.T.O. The same was filed before this Court along with I.A. No. 3, which is also taken on record. According to the licence particulars issued by the R.T.O. concerned, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident. In view of above, in our considered opinion, the driver of the offending vehicle was having effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident and the respondent No. 6/ Insurance Company has been wrongly exonerated from its Uability to pay compensation. For the foregoing, the appeal preferred by the owner of the vehicle is allowed in part to the extent of exoneration of the respondent No. 6/Insurance Company. The respondent No. 6/ Insurance Company shall also be liable jointly and severely along with the appellant and the respondent No. 5 for payment of compensation to the claimants. Rest of the terms of the award shall remain intact. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge