GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU Single Bench: \R I §g Hon’ble‘Shri Justice Radhe Sh am Sharma Miscellaneous AQQeal (Cl No.1 76 of 2008 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited verSUS Mohan Maurya and others ORDER Post for [7-08—201 1 H M 8'“! Racine $hyam Shanna ' Judge _I£GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPLE S on .B.: H ’bje S Justice Radhe Sh Miscellaneous Anneal (C) No.1 76 of 200g AQQeHant Vs. Resgondents 1. Sma har Limited, The Oriental Through Insurance Company Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company, main Road, ‘ Jagdaipur, Distt. Bastar (CG) Mohan Maurya S/o. Bhaktu Maurya @ Konduram Age 18 Viiiage years, Resident Pandaripani, of Pameiapara, Thana Parpa, District Bastar (CG) Dhanpati Baghei S/o. Lakheshwar Baghei, Age 25 years, Resident of Sundipara, Viiiage Niyanar, Distt. Bastar ) Vikas Rao S/o. Laxmi Rao Resident of in front of House Of Advocate Ramchandra Satpathi, Adawai, Jagdaipur (CG) Anupam Choudhary, S/o. Late Choudhary, Resident of Ward, Jagdaipur, Distt. Bastar Naya Bus Stand, Gandhi Nagar (CG) Present: Shri Sudhir Agrawai, counsel for the appeiiant. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1 988. ORDER (Passed on IZ August,2011) hri am 2 2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Claim Case No.349/2005. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents 2 & 3 are the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle Tata 407 No.C.G. 17 ZB/0329. Respondent No.3 was registered owner of the offending vehicle. He sold the vehicle to respondent No.4 Anupam Choudhary and gave its possession to him. The appellant was the insurer of the vehicle at the time of the accident. On 27th’May, 2005, respondent No.1 Mohan Maurya was traveling in the said vehicle and respondent No.2 Dhanpati Baghel was employed as driver under respondent No.4 and he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. When they reached between Alnar and Sadgood, the vehicle turned turtle, due to its rash and negligent driving. Respondent No.1/claimant sustained severe injuries on his head, chest, back and both the legs. He also sustained fracture in his ribs. He was admitted in Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur from 28.5.2005 to 20.6.2005 and thereafter he was referred to Nawarangpur Hospital. The claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth ‘the Act, 1988’) for compensation of Rs.16,90,000/—. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.72,497/— as compensation in favour of respondent No.1, holding liability to pay the compensation upon the appellant/Insurance Company. 3. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company has argued that respondent No.2/driver Dhanpati Baghel was having driving license to drive only light motor vehicle, whereas, the vehicle involved in the instant case WWWWWWwWTWMWWWw............... _ _ _ _ 4g, K § 3 is Tata 407, which is a Medium Goods Vehicle (MGV), as mentioned in its certificate of registration (Ex.NA—3A) and particulars of the vehicle (Ex.NA—2). In the insurance policy, which is aiso exhibited as Ex.NA—2, description of the offending vehicle is mentioned as Tata 407. Thus, the subject vehicle is a medium goods vehicle. There is a clear breach of policy of insurance, as the driver, who was having a license to drive light motor vehicle only, could not be permitted to drive the goods vehicle, therefore, the Insurance Company could not have been held liable. He further argued that respondent No3 has transferred the vehicle to respondent No.4, but neither transferor nor transferee of the vehicle intimated to the Insurance Company about the transfer. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. He has placed reliance on Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol and others, reported in 2009 AIR ia Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prabhulal, reported in IR SCW 7677 and The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Ragni Masih and others (Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No.74/2010 decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 17—6—201 1) . 4. On the other hand, Shri Subhash Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.2/driver and Shri Santosh Bharat, learned counsel for respondent No.4/owner of the offending vehicle argued that medium goods vehicle is covered under the dennition of light motor vehicle. eight of the offending vehicle is 5300 Kgs., which is less than 7500 Kgs., therefore, the offending vehicle falls within the definition of light motor vehicle and the driver was having a valid and effective driving ml H WW m mmmm mwlmmmww.“.....,.......“We SCW 2747, New Ind 2007 A W 4 license to the drive the vehicle. Shri Goutam Khetrapai, {earned counsel for respondent No.1/c1a'rmant supported the impugned award and placed reliancé on United lndia insurance Company Ltd. Vs. K.M. Poonam and others, reported in 2011 Law Suit (SC) 544. 5. l have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned award as also the evidence available on record. 6. lt is evident that the original owner of the offending vehicle r Tata 407 was respondent No.3Nikas Rao and according to him, he sold the vehicle to respondent No.4/Anupam Choudhary. lt is also evident that intimation about transfer of the offending vehicle was not given to the insurance company. lt is the liability of the owner to intimate the insurance company regarding the transfer of the vehicle. Both the transferor or the transferee took no step to change the name of the owner in the certificate of registration. On account of the said omission, the transferor must be deemed to continue as the owner of the vehicle for the purposes of the Act, 1988, even though, under civil law, he would cease to be the owner after the sate of the vehicle, therefore, the transferor is liable to pay compensation, 7. ln the matter of Oriental insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol and others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus: brings within its umbrage both ‘transport vehicie’ or ‘omnibus’, indisputably, as would be noticed infra, a distinction between an effective license granted for g “9. Although the definition of the ‘light motor vehicle’ M3. WnM%WmWWWW-w m WWNWMWMW MHK WM \\\\ WN \XV \\\\ \WK /M 5 transport vehicle and passenger motor vehicie exists. 10. The distilnction between a ‘light motor vehicre' and a ‘transport vehicle’ is, therefore, evident. A transport vehicte may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained. The distinction between a ‘transport vehicie’ and a ‘passenger vehicie’ can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 provides for duration of a period of three years in case of an effective iicence to drive a ‘transport vehicle’ whereas in case of any other licence, it may remain effective for a period of 20 years.” 8. in the matter ofw New india Assurance Com an Ltd. Vs; Prabhulal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus: “23. The District Forum held that the documents clearly mentioned that the vehicle was a ‘goods carriage’ as denned in Section 2(14) covered by the the category Act. of The ‘transport State Commission vehicle’ under held Section that since 2(47) the of gross weight of the vehicle was only 6800 Kgs. and did not exceed permissible limits (7500 Kgs.) nor it was carrying goods at the time of accident, it was a Light Motor Vehicle. For coming to that conclusion, the State Commission relied upon Ashok Gangadhar. 24. ln our considered view, the State Commission was wrong in reversing the hnding recorded by the y , concerned, District Forum. We will So deal far with as the Ashok said Gangadhar decision little is later but from the documentary evidence on record and particularly, from the permit issued by the Transport Authority, it is amply clear that the vehicle i _ x w) , *wmgw ' 6 was a ‘goods carrier’ [Section 2(14)]. If it is so, obviousiy, it was a ‘transport vehicle’ failing under clause (47) of Section 2 of the Act. The District Forum was, therefore, right in considering the question of liability of the Insurance Company on the besis that Tata 709 which met with an accident was ‘transport vehicle’.” 9. in View of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the iaw laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol and others (supra) and New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prabhulal (supra), is clearly appiicable in the present case. lt is not disputed that the driver was having license to drive a light motor vehicle, which is different from the iicense issued to drive a transport vehicle or medium goods vehicle. Thus, it is found that driver Dhanpati Baghel was not having a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle, i.e., Tata 407, and as such, since the vehicle was driven by an unauthorized person, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify damages and satisfy the award. 10. Thus, applying the said principle in the facts of the present case, it is held that driver Dhanpati Baghel, who was not entitled to drive a medium goods vehicle, for which, a different license would be required under the iaw, there being breach of terms of the policy, the Insurance Company could not have been held liable to satisfy the aWard, but the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle shall be liable to pay compensation. :mmwwumw mmwrm f mt W Bini WMwW ..,V.V_..w.,,,._u ._.,,.. .. 7 11. In view of the abave facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant/insurer of the offending vehicle Tata 407 is not iiable to paycompensation to the ciaimant, therefore, the instant appeal is aiiowed and it is held that the appellant/insurer of the vehicle is not liable to pay compensation and that part of the impugned award is set aside. However, remaining part of the impugned award is not interfered with in the instant appeal. The appellant/insurer of the vehicle Tata 407 is exonerated from liability to pay compensation. The compensation shall now be paid to the claimant by the driver Dhanpati Baghel, Vikas Rao and Anupam Choudhary, jointly and severally. No order as to costs, Ev“! Radhe $hyam Shanna Judge g9