[ ^'^' BEFORE THE HON'BLEHIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (CV No \\°0 /2010 F APPELLANT/ Owner ofthe Vehicle. { <^%-^ '...••••••••^3^:^ ;y-^ ^. ptes®^ ^aw'"RESPONDENTS Claimants Driver Insurer (^ M. Shamsher Singh, S/olate M. Charan ^ Singh, aged about j5_3L: years, resident of Papua Transport, G.E. Road, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. Smt. Lakshmi Devi, W/o late Shri Rajkishore Yadav, aged about25years. 2. Ku. Niharika, D/o late Shri Rajkishore Yadav, aged about2 years. 3. Ku. Manisha, D/o late Shri Rajkishore Yadav, aged about 1 year. 4. Sunder Dev Yadav, S/o late Shri Nageshwar Yadav, aged about 52 years. 5. Smt. Lakshani Devi, W/o Shri Sunder Dev Yadav, aged about 48 years. € ^SStewde^>_ _ _ L. No.2 & 3 are minors Tepresented ' through natural guardian motherSmt. Lakshmi Devi. All the 'a|:ii5e11ante are residentsofCamp - 1, Shanti Para, Bhilai, P.S. Chhawni, Tahsil and Dist. Durg (C.G.) 6. Omkar Singh, S/o Shri Rajnath Singh, aged 30 years, Caste - Rajput, Resident of near Basic Primary School, J.P.Nagar, Camp - 1,Bhilai,) P.S. Chhawni, Tahsil and Dist. Durg (C.G.) 7. The Oriental Insurance Company Limjted, through its Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Malviya Nagar, Durg, Tahsil and Dist. Durg (C.G.) MISC. APPEALUNDER SECTION 1730F THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.1988 ^ Claim in appeal valued at : Rs.4,20,000/- Court fee affixed at 15/- "^:? HIOHCGURTOFCHHATNSGARM.BILASPOR DB: HON*BLE I. M. QUDDU8I & HON»BLE G. MINHAJUDDUff, JJ M.A(Cl No. 1100/2010 APPBLLABTB: RB8PONDBWT8: M, SIiaiiisher Siagli Vs. Siiit Lakshini Devi aad ofbLcrs MISC. ABI»&ALWNDBR 8BCNON 173 OP THB MOTOR VBIHCLB8 ACT. 1988 Appearaaee: Mr, P. R, Pataakar, counsel for fhe appellaiit Mr. B. P. Singh, counsel for respondeaits 1 to 5. Mr, Manish Upadhyay, coxiasel for respondent No.7, Per I.M. om>DUSI. J. ORALOKDBR (22.09.2011) 1. This appeal has been fiied by fhe owner of tiie vehicle a^aiast fhe impugaed awaid dat«l12.08.2010 passed by fhe VIII Addl. Motor Accident Clauns Tnbimal (F.T.C), Dm^, District Durg (C,G) m Clauai Case No.22/2008 so far as it rclates to fastemng offhe liabiUty to pay compensation upon fhe appellaat 2. Brief facts of fhe case as per fhe version of fhe claiinanits that on 13.09.2007, Raj Kishorc Yadav after loadmg the Trw?k Trailer bearing Regn.No.C.G.07-C/437 at Tedesara had gone to Kamataka in the said vehicle. On 29.09.2007 at about 10.30 a,m,, when he was showiag side by giviag caution to fhe driver of the said vehicle for comiag back side &oiii tihie factoiy, respondent no.6/0nkar Singh (driver) in a xash aad ne^igent mamier suddeiily reversed fhe Truck/as a residt ofwfaich, fhe deceased was pressed between cones and Txailer and he died on fhe saine day. At fhe time of accident, fhe decea^ed was aged about 27 years; he was exaployed aad workiag ii^der fhe appellaBt as driver aiid was eamixig Rs,SOOO/- per morrtli, Tfae claimants bemg depe&dexits/legal representatives of fhe deceated have ffled claim petition u/s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for the awaid of a total compensation of Rs.26,70,000/- on various heads. pl1^1'111111 11 ^' c c The learaed daims Tnbunal has held tihat veNcle beaaAag Regn,No,C.G,07-C/437 which was rasfaly got reversed by respondent no,6, due to which, Raj Kisfaiore wfao was showiag side to fhe vehicle JGPOHI back side, was hit by fbe said vehicle, as a result ofwhich he died; fhere was br^ach of coiiditioiis of fhe Insuraiice Policy and fhe clauiiaats are aatitled to rcoeive a suni ofRs,4,20,000/-fix>xxi fhe owner aad driwer Le,» appellaait and respondent no,6 hereiii joiafly and severatly, Learned eounsel for fhe appeUaiit maiaaly eontends tifcat fhe person who was drwing tlie vehicle at fhe time of accideiit ia question was Onkar Siagh, s/o Ramaafh and not ©nkarSiia^gh son ofRajnafh Siagh as held by learaed Claixas T^ifo^xial. We have perused fhe learaed counsel for fhe parties aad have also gone fhrough fhe records oftheTribuxxaL A perusal of fhe record shows fhat ftie persoii who was drivix^ fhe vehicle at fhe tmie of accident io. questioQ was Oakar Smgh, s/o Rajnafh. Sio.gh. An oflacial jBrom RTO camie iH*o witaess box and also cert&fied fhat Orikar Siix^i, aon of Raixmafh Siagh was haviag diiving Mcence, To verify wli^her fhe fafher^s name of Oakar Siagh was Rajnafh S&agh or Ranmafh, opportuiiity was ^iven to tiie appellaat but it could m>t avail, Therefore, it caimot be saad fhat fh^ driviiig licnase issued io. fhe name of Onkar Siiigh, son of femaiiafh Sihigh was in fact fhe driviug licence of Onlsar Smgh, s/o Rajnafh Singh and therefore, tfaere is no hesitation ia holdiiig that Oitkar Siagh^ son of Rajnafh Sia.gh mas not holdiBg vaMd smd effective driving Ucence on fhe date ofaccident 7. Purfher, on perusal of tihie recoids of tiie Tribunal^ it also reveals fhat Onkar Singh, s/o Rajnath Singhwas aerved notice. If fhe father'a name of Onkar Singh would not hawe been ^ 8. Rao Rajnafh Siagh, fhe notice couM not have been served upoii him, fherefore, by this action also it is pixwed fhat fhe father's naane of Onkar Singh, who was iavolved ia the accideaat of (he instant case is, 'Rajnath Singh'. The poHce faave afeso filed charge sheet agamst Qnkar Siagh, s/o Rajnath Siagh ia tiie Crimmal Court, A joiat written statement was also filed by fhe owaer axid driver ie., appeUant aad Onkar Siagh, son of Rajnafhi wMerem also no objection was raised rcgardiiig fhe fafher^s naoie of Onkar Singh. That apart, ia fhe iastant appeal, fhe iiotice has been served upon Onkar Siagh, son ofRajnafh Siii^i (hrough his Aunt Chachi Hviiig joiafty wifh Onkar Siaigh. In view offhe above discussion, we are offhe optodcoa fhat Itiere was brcach of conditions of the Insurance PoUcy as at fhe time of acc&dent, fhe offenditig vehicle was beiBg driven by t&e person who was not aufhonzed to drive fhe same aiud fherefore, fhe Tribunal has righfly fastened Uabitity upoxi the appeUant/ owner oftiie Vehicle. Therefore, fhis appeal has 110 force and is disixiissed. No oider as to cost(s^ Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge