INTHEHIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBIUKSPUR Misc.ADDeal fCVNoJ3w OF 2010 StnaleBenclj APPELLANT ^NON-CLAIMANT ; ^urari Sahu, S/0 Shri $onai Ram, aged about - 30 Years, R/0 Village- Manpur, Tehsil- Surajpur, ...^^^3^ blstrict-Sarguja(C.G). f' <i o ^ ^-'•"^••f&x^s:,: VERSUS ^..- ^^'" ...€' ^" RESPONOENT : 1. tLAtMANT i. Jagdal Ravi S/o; Shiv Charan Ram, ag6d about 22 years, Occupatipn- Mason and Carpenter, R/o. Vjllage- Mehangai/Tehsil- Surajpur, District- Sarguja (C.G) RESPONDENTS 2.^ NON^CLAIMANTS l^- 3. Roop NarayanS/o. Nanak Ram Aged About - 35 Years, R/o. Village- Kuruwa, Kenapara^ Police Station- Bishrampur, TehsiI- Surajpur, District- Sarguja (€.©) TheOi-iental ^ Inmtfin^e Company, Throyjgli BrNii| ~ES © Manager, Ambedkar Chowk, manendragarh Road, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, (C.G.). \^' APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. T^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT M.A.fQNo. 700 of2010 Murari Sahu VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Jagdal Ravi& others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICL.ES ACT tSB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Shri Sarfaraj Khan, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Roshan Verma, Advocate for the respondent 2. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 09.02.2011) Heard on admission. 1. This appeal has been filed by owner ofthe offending vehicle against the award dated 18.03.2010, passed by the IVth Additiona! Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Ambikapur, in Claim Case No. 70/08, whereby learned Tribunal has awarded in favour of the claimants an amount of Rs. 1,01,200/- as compensation and as against the appellants/owners exonerating the Insurance Company to pay compensation on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing efifective and valid driving licence at the timeofaccident. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 19.01.2007, Jagdal Ravi, traveling in Bus bearing registration No. CG-10-ZA/0128, being driven by the appellant No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner. The said Bus tiirned turtle, as a result, Jagdal Ravi sustained grievous ' f ^•^^^ %^s^ bodily injuries. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming Rs.2,82,000/- as compensation for the said accident. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny ofthe evidence led, material placed and submissions made passed the award as above. Hence this appeal. Shri Sarfaraj Khan, leamed counsel for the appellant would submit, although the vehicle was commercial vehicle but was light motor vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was possessing light motor vehicle driving licence and the Tribunal has wrongly exonerated the Insumnce Company on the ground that endorsement of transport vehicle is necessary in the above licence. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the record as also the impugned award. It is not in dispute that the driver of the offending vehicle Was holding Light Motor Vehicle licence on the date of accident, which was issued to him for a period 20 years. The period of licence would again suggest that the licence was non-transport vehicle licence. The Apex Curt in case of Oriental Insurance C'ompany Ltd. -v- Angad Kol and Ors. Reported in JT 2009 (2) 587 held in para 15, 16,17 and 18 as under:- "15. Licence having been granted for a period of20years, a presumption, therefore, arises that it was meant for the purpose ofa vehicle other than a transport vehicle. ..^ss ^ Sfe^ 'm^ '<;^v..:,... 16. Had the driving licence had been granted for transport vehicle, the tenure thereof could not have exceeded to three years. In Natioiial Insiiraiice Co, Ltd, V, Aiiiiappa Irappa Nesaria [JT 2008 (1) SC 617; 2008 (3) SCC 464], this Court noticed the aforementioned development in the matter of grant of licence to a transport vehicle stating that the same became effective from 28-3-2001 in the following tems: "20. From what has been notieed herembefore, it is evident that "transport vehicle" has now been substituted for "medium goods vehicle" and "hea^ goods vehicle". The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point oftime to cover both "light passenger carriage vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle". A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was aythorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well. 21. the amendments camed out in the Rules having a prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law." 17. The effect ofthe different terms of licences granted in terms ofthe provisions of Section 2(14) and 2(47) has also been noticed by this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Prabhu Lal [JT 2007(13)80 246; 2008 (1) SCC 696], stated: "30. Now, it is the case of the Insurance Company that the vehicle ofthe complainant which met with an accident was a "transport vehicle". It was submitted that the insured vehicle was a "goods carriage" and was thus a "transport vehicle". The vehicle was driven by Ram Narain, who was authorized to drive light motor ?,^A 1 ^' TJ./ '^.. ^-^.^ "^&^' vehicle and not a transport vehicle. Since the driver had no licence to drive transport vehicle in absence of necessary endorsement in his licence to that effect, he could not have driven Tata 709 and when that vehicle met with an accident, the Insurance Company could not be made liable to pay compensation. XXX XXX XXX 37. The argument of the Insurance Company is that at the time of accident, Ram Narayan had no valid and effective licence to drive Tata 709. Indisputably, Ram Narain was having a licenee to drive Light Motor Vehicle. The leamed counsel for the Insurance Company, referring to various provisions of the Act submitted that if a person is having licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can not drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do (Section 3).Claiises (14), (21), (28) and (47) of Section 2 make it clear that if a vehicle is "light motor vehicle"", but falls under the category of transport vehicle, the driving licence has to be diily endorsed under Section 3 of the Act. If it is not done, a person holding driving licence to ply light motor vehicle cannot ply transport vehicle. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, Ram Narain was having licence to drive light motor vehicle. The licence was not endorsed as required and hence, he could not liave driven Tata 709 in absence of requisite endorsement and the Insumnce Company could not be held liable. 38. We find considerable force in the submission of the leamed counsel for the Insurance Company. We also find that the District Fonim considered the question in its proper perspective and held that the vehicle driven by Ram Narain was covered by the ,f ^ ^. category of transport vehicle under Clause (47) of Section 2 of the Act. Section 3, therefore, required the driver to have an endorsement which would entitle him to ply such vehicle. It is not even the case of the complainant that there was such endorsement and Ram Narain was allowed to ply transport vehicle. On the contrary, the case of the complainant was that it was Mohd. Julfikar who was driving the vehicle. To us, therefore, the District Forum was right in holding that Ram Narain could not have driven the vehicle in question. The Court distinguished its earlier judgment in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental iTisuraiice [JT 1999 (6) SC 423; 1999 (6) SCC 620 stating: "41. in our Judgment, Ashok Gangadhar did not lay down that the driver holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle need not have an endorsement to drive transport vehicle and yet he can drive such vehicle. It was on the peculiar facts of the case, as the Insurance Company neither pleaded nor proved that the vehicle was transport vehicle by placing on record the permit issued by the Transport Authority that the Insurance Company was held liable." However, in this case, the finding of fact arrived at that the vehicle in question was not proved to be a goods vehicle is not correct. The Regional Transport Officer in his deposition, stated that the vehicle in question was a goods vehicle. However, in this case, the finding offact arrived at that the vehicle in question was not proved to be a goods vehiele is not correct. The Regional Transport Officer, ^•^^-.^.•. ^. '""-''-.; J^ te. in his deposition, steted that the vehicle in question was a goods vehicle. 18. From the discussions made hereinbefbre, it is thus, evident that it is proved that respondent No. 6 did not hold a valid and effective driving licence for driving a goods vehicle, Breach ofconditions ofthe Insurance is, therefore, apparent on the face ofthe records." 7. In view ofthe above referred dictum of Supreme Court, it is clear that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same in breach of conditions of the policy, and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation to the claimant. 8. The appeal being devoid of substance fails and is dismissed. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu