IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR [CHHATTISGARH] g“”‘wi£.ill 1U) ‘f Misc APPEAL NO OF 20° MISCELLANECUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 PPELLANI/ National Insurance Co. Ltd. INSURER Through Assistant Manager, NR7 National Insurance Co. Ltd. B-1,Taha Complex, Ist Floor Ring Road, Priyadarshini Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and Dist.Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENT/ 1. Shekhar S/o Sahdevji Borkar RIVER] / aged ab’out 29 years, ‘R/o Lakhni, Banjari Mohalla, P.S. Lakhni, District Bhandara Maharashtra. RESPONDENT/ WNER] }. Mohd. R/o Mommpura, Za-kir,S/o Mo'hdJamal Ralpur (CG) Through‘ M. S. QueresFii, Takiyapara, Bhandara [M.S] 3. Muntashir Hamid Quereshi, / S/o Hamid Quereshi, Regd. Owner,R/o Near Mominpura MaSjid, Nagpur [M.S.} RESPONDENTS/ 4 a)? Smt Kaushalya Sahu Wd/o LCLAIMANTS] I/ ' GopiyRam Sahu, agedlabout 33 years, b Shivanand Sahu S/o Gopl ‘dTRam Sahu, aged about 11 years, c w Pushkar Sahu, S/o Gopi am Sahu, aged about Ga uyears, d)jg(umari’ Ram $ahu, Lili agad Sahu,D/9 about Gopi a7 ‘ yeam, 1 - ® Respondents No.4(b) to (d) being minor through their Legal Guardian — mother Smt. Kaushalya, Wd/o Gopi Ram. e) _Bhukhg, Ram $ahu,S/o Late 'Kartikram Sahu,aged about 70 years, Smt. Ramotin Bai, W/o Bhukhe Ram Sahu,aged about 65 years, Respondents No. 4 a) to f) AII R/o Village Hasda No.2 P.S. & Tahsil Abhanpur Dist. Raipur [Chhattisgarhl r, f) V/ MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION/{7’3 OF THE HIéH C§URT fiF CHHATTI$§ARH AT §iL§5PUR DIWSION BENCH: HON'BLE MR i.M.QUDDU5i & HGN‘BLE MR. PRASHI4NT KUfAARMISHRA‘ JJ. iJl . A . No . 285.4'2W5 Appelinn‘r/ insurer Na'rionai Insurance €o. L'rd. Biiaspur ‘ l} Vs Wsgondents Shekhar 61 others ?r“‘esem: ~ Mr Gaufnm Khefr'apal Advoccrre Tor fhe anpeilanf Miss Marrsha Kshcd'r‘y Advocafe Tor 'i‘he respondenf N5 4m) To (f) Mane for afher- responden‘rs ORDER (Oral) (5* January, 201$ ’ iM‘. Quddusik 3; i. Heard. 2. The appeiianT-insur'ance Company has preferredjrhis miscellaneous appeal under Secflon17'3 of The MoTor Vehicles ACT, 1988 (far short ‘The Acf‘) against ‘the impugned award dated 2312,2004 passed by the learned 2m Addifio’nai Moior Accidenf Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) (for shor'r ‘fhe Tribunal? in Claim Case No.73f2004 awarding a compensafion of §s.3,07,000/’- To The claiman‘rs and fasfening iiabili'ry on The appellanT- InsuranceL‘om pany To safisf'y fhe award. ‘ 3. Facts ofThe/case, in brief, are That The claimants, who are widow, children and parenfs‘of deceased Gopiram Sahu, have filed a claim pe‘iifion under ‘_ Section 163%,,01: The MoTor Vehicles ACT, 1988 (forshorT ‘The AcT’) before The Tribunal seeking compensaTion of Rs.22,50_.000/— for The deaTh‘of deceased éopiram, who died in a moTor accidenT Took place on 7.2.2004 when The moped of The deceased was dashed by Truck bearing regisTraTion number C604—F—5306: due To rash and negligenT driving by iTs driller. ReporT of The incidenT was lodged in,,The police sTaTion 8obra—Nawapara on The basis of which offence under SecTions 279 337' 31 304 (A) of The IPC was regisTered and afTer compleTIon of invesTigaTion The charge sheeT was \,. K‘V “med in The ‘Co’ur‘T against the driver of The vehicie. The claiman‘l‘s have ’ c‘iaimedj’compensa'rion on fhe/gr‘ound Thaf They‘were dependem ch The ‘ deceased, ‘who’‘was The sole earning member- in family,_ and due Tq his deaTh, ' They havesuffer'ed loss of income. The noneappiicanTs_resis_Ted The claim of The ciaimanT by filing wr-iTTen sTaTemenT. ‘ The Tribunal af-Terf hearing The parTies in ThelmaTTer has reached To a conclusion ThaT The claimanTs are enTiTled for compensaTion of Rs.3,07,000/-_ qnd accordingly awarded The same To The claimanTs‘ afrer ‘ holding The appellanT-Insurance Company liable To saTisTy The award. 6. Learned counsel for The aopellahT-Insurance Company submiTs ThaT The appellanTV could noT geT an oppohTuniTy To adduce evidence as ex—parTe ’_‘_ proceedings were ordered againsT iT. However, he very fairly submiTs’ThaT ‘ The impugned award is assailed mainly on The ground ThaT aT The Time of ’ accidenT The driver was noT having valid and effecTive driving. licence, howeverpwhile preparing The‘case he came across wiTh a documenT which j goes To show ThaT driving licence of The driver was renewed on 18.11l2002 and valid up To 18.11.2005. He ”also produced Xerox copy of The driving licence. . We have heard learned counsel "for The parTies and perused The record. ‘ 8. SecTion 14‘ (2) of The ACT provides ThaT driving‘licence issued or renewed under The‘AcT shall, in case of a licence To drive a TransporT vehicle, be effecTive Torj‘a‘period of‘Three years} and, every driving licence shall, nOTwiThsTanding iTs expiry under ThaT sub-secTion’conTinued To be effecTi’ve for a period of ThirTy years from such expiry. .9.775e‘cTion 15 (1) of The AcT provides ThaT any licensing auThoriTy may, on applicaTion‘made To iT, renew a driving licence issued under The provisions of This AcT wiTh effecT from The daTe of iTs expiry. 10. Since The driving licence ofThe driver was renewed from The daTe of iTs expiry and remained‘valid upTo 18.11.2605, iT cannoT be said ThaT The driver ’of The vehicle in ques‘rion was nofhaving valid and effecTive driving licence V L . {x pi '4 l . . x t" r ‘ ’ ’” on The dare of accident Therefore, i1 is now unnecessary To provide an opportunh‘y To *he appeHanf To adduce addifionol ony addifionol evidenceos This poinT.‘ is unsusfainabie in View of The above fact 11. For The foregoing discussion, we are of The opinion fho'r The insTonT appeal has no force; The some deserves To be and is hereby dismissed. No order as To cosTs; 12. The Xerox copy of driving iicence of The driver of The offending vehicle shaii form ' ‘ parT of The record. Sdl- Sdl- I.M.Quddusi Prashant Kumar Mishra Ros‘noni" s Judge Judge ~