(1) c ^ ^ ' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) M.^A.JCLNp. U 60 of 2009 S3ijijyis; APPELLANT/ Owner ^.lc2!t:'^. ^' L^^'^sw^r .....-^^% ^^t^y1 VERSUS RESPONDENTS/ :1 Claiinant Devesh Kumar Gupta @ Dinesh Kum.ar Gupta, S/o Buddhinarayan Gupta, aged about •-2_(^ years, R/o Village- Mithlapur, Post-Basantpur, Tahsil-Wadrafnagar, District- Sarguja (C.G.) Pankaj Singh Paikra, S/o Jamadar Singh, aged about 18 years, R/o Village- Wadrafnagar, District-Sarguja (C.G.) Akhalesh Kuinar Gupta, S/o Buddhinarayan Gupta, aged about 20 years, R/o Village- Mithlapur, Post-Basantpur, Tahsil-Wadrafnagar, District- Sarguja (C.G.) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Ambedkar Chowky Ambikapur, District-Sarguja (C.G.) MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLE ACT Driver 2. Insurer v \ JRT r'1 ^»ys .9 ^b^' Devesh Kumar Gupta Kumar Gupta Versus Dinesh Pankaj Singh Paikra and others SB: I ;T T fX-f tw?i.iIRI N.K. AGRAWAL, T f^ 2, 3. FT:- Shri D.N. Prajapati, Adv. for the appellant. L O (4-12-2009) This is owner's appeal against award dated 27-7-2009 passcd by fhe Additional Motor Accident Clauns Tribunal (FTC), Pratappur, Distt. Sarguja m Claim Case No. 27/2008 whereby and whereunder, an amount of Rs. 43,696/- has been awarded to fhe claimant along wifh tnterest at (he rate of 7% per anniim from fhe date of application tUl its payment fastening the Babaity upon fhe owner and the driver. Facts briefly stated are as under:- On 25-11-2007, while claimant Pankaj Singh Paikra along wifh hls friend Suraj Singh was going on a Hero Puch motorcycle from Bus Stand, Wadrafaagar to his ward, a pick up vehicle bearin^ Registration No. UP D/9539 coraing from opposite direction dashed his niotorcycle from right side, as a result of which, clamiant and Suraj Smgh feU down and fhe claimant sustatned grievous bodUy tajuries. He ffled a claim petitlon under Section 166 of the Motor VehiclesAct, 1988. Leamed Tribiinal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, the material placed and fhe submissions made by the parties, awardcd a sum of Rs. 43,696/- to the claimant, holding liable the owuer and driver for its payment and exonerattng fhe Insurance Coinpany frora its BabUity on the ground that at the ttme of accident, fhe vehicle was being plight in breach of (he policy conditions as the driver of fhe vehicle was not havins vehicle. valid drivmg licence tbr driving pick up 5. Leamed coiinsel for the appeUant woiild submit fhat leamed Tribiinal has erred in exonerating the Insurance Company on fhe ground the driver of fhe offending vehicle did not have valid and efiective driving Ucence. For this, by placing reUance upon the judgment of this Coiirt in case of Natioaal Insurance Co. Ud. —v- Shyam Suadar and others reported in 2008 (1) ACCD 205 (CG), he would submit that tn view of the judgment, despite the fact that the driver of the ofiending vehicle was not having valid and efFective driving Ucence at the time of accident, the Insurance Company ought to have been held liable for payment of coinpensation to fhe claimant. Secondly, he would contend fhat as the claimaiit himself was negligent/contributed in causlng fhe accident, leamed Tribunal has erred tn fastening fhe liabUity upon fhe appeUant. 6. I have heard leamed counsel for the appeUant, penised fhe award unpugned and record ofthe Tribunal. 7. Indisputably, fhe vehicle was a goods camage vehicle aad licence of the driver was valid to dnve light motor vehicle, nieaning thereby, not vaild to drive transport vehicle. The said licence was issued for a period of 20 years, which itself su^ests fhat £he driver of the offending vehicle was not authorized to drive transport vehicle, and therefore, there is not an iota of doubt in my mind that at the time of accident, fhe driver of the offending vehiele was not holding valid and effective driving licence. So far as (he case cited and relied upon by Shri Prajapati is concemed, it is of no help to him. In the case citpd, leamed Single Judge of fhis Court has held (hat a person driving minibus wifhout fhere being an endorsement of transport vehicle carmot be sald to have a valld and efiective driving licenee for driving minibus, but as the accident occurred in fhat case due to bursting of tyre when the vehicle was in stationaiy condition, leamed Single Judge has held that the dnver has not contributed in the cause of acddent ia fhe facts and circumstances of that case inasmuch as the vehicle was not in running condition aad fherefore, even ifthe driver was not holding valid licence, fhe breach ..,?•'< •f's 1 "s^sssik ^ *^ ^ / \^-€/ is not fundamental in nature and by holding fhls, fhe Insurance Company has been held liable. The facts in the prcsent case are totaUy different. Here the driver of the offending vehicle while driviag fhe vehicle dashed the motorcycle by going towards its right side and, therefore, cause ofaccident is cleariy attributable to rash and negligent driving of fhe driver and fhus, fhe factuia of invaUd driving licence has a significant role in the cause of accident. 8. The nexf contention raised by Shri Prajapati is also ofno substance. A careful reading of the pleadlng of the parties and the evidence adduced thereupon is not suggestive of the fact that fhe claimant also contnbuted in fhe cause of accident. 9. No ofher points have been raised by leamed counsel for the 10. In view of fhe above, I do not find any inerit in the uistant appeal preferred by the owner. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at adinission stage. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge y