c-F IN THE KON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHIiATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT M.A. (C) No.- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., •^,^ n/' ^.vV<nA^ THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ?v DIVISION NUMBER- 1, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., JAIL ROAD RAIPUR, TAHSIL & DISTRICT - RAIPUR C.G. (INSURER OF METADOR NUMBER C.G. 05 B.- 0186) Vra. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS :- SatyanaraB, »/•.^(aadiratottp 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. VISHWAKARMA, 10 YRS. SAURABH S/0 ASHOK VISHWAKARMA, 4YRS. SATYANARAYAN S/0 CHANDRADEEP VISHWAKARMA, 70 YRS. SANJOGIYA W/0 SATYANARAYAN VISHWAKARMA, 65 YRS. RITESH KUMAR S/0 SATYANARAYAN VISHWAKARMA, 17 YRS. KU. MAMTA D/0 SATYANARAYAN VISHWAKARMA, 15 YRS. FOR RESPODENT N0.- 2, 3, 4 AS GUARDIAN MOTHER PURNIMA BAI VISHWAKARMA AND FOR RESPONDENT N0. 7 TO 8AS GUARDIAN FATHER SATYANARAYAN VISHWAKARMA, RESIDENT OF BADHAI PARA, RAIPUR, TAHSIL & DISTRICT - RAIPUR (C.G.) RESPONDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS :- 6. MUKUND S/0 HEERALAL @ HEERU ^- NAGRACHI, RESIDENT OF KUMARDA, P.0. KURUD, THANA- KURUD, ..2.. .2.. DISTRICT-DHAMTARI (CHHATTISGARH) (DRIVER OF METADOR NUMBER C.G. 05 B.- 0186) 7. SMT. SURAJ BAI WIDOW OF SOHAN LAL DEWANGAN, RESIDENT OF MAKESHWAR WARD DHAMTARI, P.0. DHAMTARI, KURUD, DISTRICT- DHAMTARI (CHHATTISGARH) (OWNER OF METADOR NUMBER C.G. 05 B.- 0186) APPEAL UNDER SECTIWLni^OF MOTOR VEmCLE ACT 1988 APPEALVALUED Rs. 3,97,000/- ( APPEAL BY INSURANCE) COMPENSATION CLAIMED BEFORE TRIBUNALRs. 11,80,000/- — AWARDED AMOUJNT BY TRIBUNALRs. 3,97,000/-/—— ^ ^ •,'\. ,^-;&T ,!/ S- ^SS^ M ^^•"'y~'-i ci '%s&;y ^ •va^sy' 's.*k^ •-J^"^'' ^^ <^ y'^ HIGHCOURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.C. No. 11/2009 u APPELLANT The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus RBSPONDENTS Natural Guardian - Grand Father Satyanaran, son of Chandradeep Vishwakarma and others ^. OR D E R For consideration Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge 9r-rio-2oro KON'BLE SHRI I.M. QUDDUSI. J SA'- >^t<- I.M.Quddusi Judge IS5 -10-2010 Postfor : 3-0 -10-2010 Sd/- N.K-AgrawaS Judge ^ ^y HIGH CQURT OFCHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR APPELLANT RBSPONDENTS M.A.C. No. 11/2009 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Natural Guardian - Grand Father Satyanaran, son of Chandradeep Vishwakarnia and others DB:- Hon. Shri I.M. Quddusi & Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, JJ. PRESENT:- Shri Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.C. Vera, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2 to 8. ORDER (2-^10-2010) PeiN.K. Agarwal^J 3. The appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has preferred this appeal against the award dated 6-9-2008 passed by the VIIIth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur in Claim Case No. 102/2007 whereby and whereby an amount of Rs. 3,97,000/- has been awarded to the claimants holding the appellant/ Insurance Company liable for its payment. Brief facts of the case are that on 30-3-2007 at about 7.00 a.m. near Lalita Chowk, the respondent no. 6 by driving the Matador bearing registration No. CG-05 B-0186 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed Ashok Kumar who was driving a Luna, as a result of which Ashok Kumar died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The claimants being legal heirs of the deceased preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (briefly the Act') claiming Rs. 11,80,OOO/- as compensation for the death of the deceased. The appellant/ Insurance Company took a specific plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding effective and valid drivirig licence at the time of accident and, therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. 4. The appellant/Insurance Company examined licence clerk, R.T.O., Raipur, Assistant Grade III, D.T.O., Dhamtari and Clerk of the Company as their witness in support of their plea. 5. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the submissions made, evidence led and the material placed, awarded Rs. 3,97,000/- to the claimants rejecting the plea of the appellant/ Insurance Company and fastened the liability to pay compensation against the appellant. Hence this appeal. 6. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that as per the licence register of R.T.O., Raipur as well as of Dhamtari, the driver of the offending vehicle was only having a licence to drive light raotor vehicle whereas indisputably, the vehicle was goods carrying vehicle and the policy was also issued covering the risk of the offending vehicle as goods vehicle. He would further contend that since the vehicle was goods carrying vehicle, therefore, the licence authorizing the driver to drive light motor vehicle withouf there being any endorsement to drive transport vehicle is invalid. It was further submitted that as per the statement of R.T.O. persons, the said driving licence was renewed for a period of 20 years. Under sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act, duration of a licence to drive a transport vehicle would be three years, whereas in case of any other licence, it may remain effective for a period of 20 years. This further supports his contention that the driver was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident and the Tribunal has seriously erred in fastening liability upon the appellant/ Insurance Company. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. -v- Prabhu Lal reported in 2008 (1) SCC 696. i^S-^^-gSs:: /'. 8. It was further submitted that as per Rule 7 of M.P./C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, a certificate for authorization to drive a transport vehicle is required to be made in Form M.P.M.V.R.-l (ATVA) along with the driving licence issued in Form 6 or 7 of the Central Rules; and the fee as specified in Rule 24. Further, as per Rule 8, a circular plastic or metal badge shall be issued by the Licensing Authority to eveiy person who has been granted an authorization to drive a transport vehicle under Rule 7 on payment of fee as specifled in Rule 24 and the driver is required to display the same while on duty. On the other hand, Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 8 supported the award and submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The effect of different terms of licence granted in terms of provisions to Section 2(14) and 2(47) of the Act has been noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Coinpany Ltd -v- Prabhu Lal (supra) and it was held in para 30, 37 and 38 of the judgment as under:- "30. Now, it is the case of the Insurance Company that the vehicle of the 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 authorised to drive light motor vehicle and not a transport vehicle. Since the driver had no licence to drive transport vehicle in absence of necessary endorseinent 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. as 3Vft jo SSBO aqi 'Arej^uoa av^ UQ 'apiqaA ^.lodsLrej^ £[d o^ p3/&.o\]v SVM. ureje^ urey pue ^uaiuasjopus qons SBM ajsq^ ^Bq^ ^UBUTB^dmoo av^ jo asBO sq^ USAS ^ou si ^i •3piqsA qons &[d o^ uiiq sppus p^noM qoiqA lusuissjopus UB SABq oi jsAup SL[I psjinbsj 'sjojajstp 'g uopoag '^ov si-I^ JO g UOptOSg JO {^} 3srva\y japun spiqsA ^jodsLrej-} jo A-ioSa^o sqi Aq p3j3A03 SBM urejBjij ureg Aq u3Aup apiqsA sip ^'eq^. ppq pire aApoadsjsd jadojd s^i ui uoi^ssnb svp. psjspisuoo mn-ioj ^OU^SIQ 3Vff. VBVft pUIJ 08^3 aff^ •S.wsduioy aoLrejnsui aq^ JQJ ^asunoo paujBa^ 9t[^ jo uotsstinqns av^ m aojoj siq^jspisuoo pug 3^ -gg •siqBij ppq sq ^ou pinoo Ai.redmoQ souBjnsui aq-t pue ^usmasjopus a^TSTnbsj: jo aouasq^ UT QQ^ B^BJ, USAUp 3ABq ^ou pinoo sq 'sousq pT.re pajinbaj SB pasjopua ^ou S^M aouaoi^ sqj, •spiqsA JO^OLU ^L[Sn 3AUp O^ 30U30I]; SuiABq S'BM ureje^ urey 'SSBO ^ire^suT sq^ m i.vvft s^ndsip UT ^ou si ^i 'spiqsA ^jodsirej; £[d ^OUUBO apiqsA JO^QUI IL[§I{ ^d O^ 33U33H §UTAUp §uipioquosjsd B 'suop ^OU ST fl JI -^OV si-I^ jo g uoiiosg jspun pasjopus A'jnp sq 01 SBL[ souaoi^ guiAup aip 'apiqsA IjodsLre^ jo AioSa^o ST.P japun S{{BJ ^nq '..apTqsA JO^OUI ;l[§^„ ST 3piq3A B ji vs^y. jesp 41 35[Bm g UOT^OSg JO (^f) pUB (85) '(TS)'(frl) sssnso •(£ uopoag) op o^ os mtq sspT^us A'treoijpsds aousan SuiAup siq ssa^un spiqaA ijodsire.1^ B 3Aup ^OUUBO 3t[ '3pIL[3A JO^OUI ^qSll 3AUp o; aousoii §UTA^q si uosjad 13 JT •[•BV^ paniuiqns ^oy si-R jo suoisiAojd snoijBA o^ guujtsjaj 'Arredmoo soijBjnsui aqi JOJ pSUnOO T;,3LUB3^ 3L[J, •3piq3A JO^OTIJ ^T.[§n 3AUp o^ aouson te ?u;A^q STSM. UTCJBM ure^ '^qB^ndsipui "60Z, 'Bfej^ 3AUp 0} 33U30II 3AT^33JJ3 pTrB pT[BA ou pBq urejB^j ureg 'iuappo^ jo auip sq^ ^B iBip ST ^Ciredui03 aoLrejnsui ST.R jo ^ysuinSjB sqj, -^e 'JSAUp 3I.P. JO SSSJpp^ JO aStfcqo o^ anp 'jndrey '0'J,'H jo BABSjeqg jBUin^ qssfey ?[J3IO sousoyq jo ^uams^.Bi.s aqi jsd sy 'OTOS'S'ZT oidn SBM pousd A^TpiyBA S-^T PLTB apiqsA Sp00§ AAB3t[ SB {13A S^ 3piq3A JO^OUI ^SH 3AUp 01 SAi^osya pire plIBA SBA p3ZI3S 30U30n §UTAUp 3Vft '(6-d "X3) OUI3UI sjnzias jsd SB 'puy s^ 'as^o siqi jo sto^j sq^ 01 Suiiuoo MOtii 'T:^ •(spiL[3A ^jodsLrexi.) apiqsA jo^ou.1 li-[8n 'e 3AUp Of. OS^a PTIBA 81 a3U30t{ sures aq^ •veu^ pres sq ^ouLreo -ft uaq^ 'sjesA OE jo pouad "B joj psnssi si spiqaA .to^om v^}\ SAUp 0^ aouaon aq^ ji •jeap si uopisod ^Sa^ aip 'aAoq^ sq-t jo AatA ui -o^ 'sjBsA' g o^ papasoxa 3Asq ^ou pinoo ajnus^ av^ 'spyqaA ^jodstrext JQJ psiirejS usaq 3ottaoi{ guiAUp 3Lp. pBH 'si3?q3A ijodsueji ureq^ .laipo spiqaA sip. jo asodjnd 9Vft JOJ 1ITB3IU SBA ^T ~(ev[^ S38TJB 'sjojsjsqt uoi^duinssjd TB 'sjreaX OZ jo pousd v JQJ pa^irejg uaaq §UTABq souso^ aqj, ^-paure^qo aq 01. psjinbaj si souaoi^ ^uajayip B 'sures aq^ SuiAUp jo asodjnd aq^ joj ^nq spiqsA jo^om iqSil; B aq SBVO. 9pit[SA iJodsuB^ •B,, :piaq OS9 008 (9) 6661: "T ps^-todaj Aueduioo aouB-insui le^uaijo -A- leq^BjBBi j'eqpBSueg qoqsy pue (^jdns) yi nqqBJj -A- "p'VT. Ausdiuoo aouBjnssv wpui A9N 'frg^ OOS (£)800Z "T ps^iodaj sjaq^o puB iSBjBsaN sTsiye Teiivsafi vddvi^ BddBUuy -A- 'pn '03 aauBjnsui teuopBN jo as^o ui ^jnoQ saiajdns jo ^usmSpnf jaiijea Supiiou JSIJE pire 'g pire -(7 suuoj v^y& §UO{B 686 T 'ssiny spiqsA so^oyi ^ej.^u.ay jo g^ pire ^i ssiny pire ioy 3t[l jo ^i 'QT '6 '£suoRoag pue (Tg) '(^T:) (£l) '(Zl) '(TT) '(OT)S suo^oag psoTiou gsg 008 (TT) 600S ui pa^jodaj s.iaq^o puB ^03 pBSuy -A- pa^Tiun AuBdiuoo aouB.insui iB^uapo jo ss'eo ui ^-ino^ atusjdng S^UOH aqj, •6 ..•uoi^ssnb Ut 3piq3A 3q^ USAUp 3AT3V[ ^ou p^noo urejet<[ urey fevft guippq UT ^qSu se . va.nj.o^ ^OIS^SIQ 3Lp 'a-tojs.taqi 'sn oj, -spiqaA sq^ SuiAup SBM oqM jB!{i:jinF "pqoj/\[ S^A ^r fevft SBM ^UBureiduioo 12. entries were made in the R.T.O. Raipur and on the basis of the entries entered in the register upto 31-1-2007, the licence to drive motorcycle with gear and light motor vehicle was issued by the R.T.O. Dhamtari for the period 15-9-2005 upto 2-2-2025 in the name of Mukuntram son of Heeraram. His deposition clearly reveals that he had not brought the entries entered in the register subsequent to 31-1-2007. If we see the period of validity of licence, as per seizure memo, it is 12-2-2010 which was alleged to be issued for light inotor vehicle as well as for heavy goods vehicle. Indisputably the licence to drive goods vehicle cannot be issued exceeding the period of 3 years. Meaning thereby, the licence to drive heavy goods vehicle was issued in favour of the driver on the date which is subsequent to 31-1-2007. Further no attempts were made by,the appellant/ Insurance Company to produce and prove the copy.of licence seized by the police in the criminal case. In view of above, it cannot be said that the appellant/ Insurance Company has successfully discharged its burden in this regard, inasmuch as the licence seized was not produced and the enta'ies made in the R.T.O. register subsequent to 31-1-2007 were not called and proved. The Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. -v- Swaran Singh and others reported in 2004(3) SCC 297 has held in paragraphs 41, 48, 49, 50 and 51 of fhe judgment as under:- "41. However, clause (a) opens with the words "that there has been a breach of a specified conditiqn of the policy", implying that the insurer's defence of the action would depend upon the terms of the policy. The said sub-clause contains three conditions of disjunctive character, namely, the insurer can get away frpm. the liability when (a) a named person drives the vehicle; (b) it was being F' vna UT pSAioAui A^jBd p-iii.ll v jaq^aqM . si urajaq uopssnb sqi 'J3A3AOH "sousjjo UB SI 33U30I{ pTTBA •B ^noq^iM spiqsA v jo SUTAUQ •aoirejnsui jo ^o^j^uoo JO SUOpIpUOO 3Lp JO 3UO ST 33V1331} SuTAUp p1]VA B jo SuTppq '^oy sspiqa^ jo^.0]/\[ av^ Jt3pu.[\ •og •qo^ajq SLp mojj p3Aou pajajjns sq ag^urep sip fBV^ OS{B ^nq ^oy ai.[l jo vpvaj.q ui spiqsA sq^ pasn sq o^ ps^Tuuad jo pasnBO jo pssn psjnsui aq; AIUO ^ou ve\y. Aoqs o^ jajnsui aqi Xq psqsiiqBiss sq ^snui psjnsui si.p jo ^jed aqi uo qoBsjq B qong 'Q^ •Ainfui X{ipoq j.o vffeap JQJ Artipq^ii jo ^osdssj m ^ip ^dsoxs 'suosjad yv jo A^ipqBn sqi pajSAOO pBq Aonod sq: JT psjaAOO uaaq 3ABq pinoM ovfw. ^nq 'Ati^iqBi{ B qons jo ^oadssj ui A'oi{od aip £.q psjnsui tou uosjad 13 ^sureSB ^uauiSpnf B jo ^osdsaj m ssnddB uo^Bgiiqo aures aqj, 'os auop 3ABq ^o^j ui &BUI jo Aoiiod avff. poireo o^ jo pioA^ 0^ psppua aq SBUI jsjnsuT sq^ ^Bq^ §UTptre^sq^iM^.ou '-ojnsui avp. Xq paysi^s sq ^snm sures av^ 'Q^l uoT^oag Aq pajSAOO aq o^ pajinbsj A^iq^ TS jo ^osdssj ui ^oipd sq: Xq pajnsui uosjsd Xtre ^sureSB ^uaLuSpnf •e paure^qo saq A}JBd p-iiip v jayy "(S)Z't7T uoii.osg jo suusi ui pajSATiap si soLrejnsuT jo a;Bogi^jso v jsyB pwa apiqsA B jo jssn avp. ^sureS^ ^uaiu§pnl' p3urei.qa SA^L[ oqM asoq^ uodn psjjsjuoo uaaq SBq ^Cpauiaj SATSUS^XS ajoui ^ '^ov 8861 3vft UT psure^uoo SUOISTAOjd 3Vft JO UOSB3J Ag •pajnsui aq^ jo ^jed aq^ uo qoBsjq B uss'q s'eq a-oq^ ^q^ qsiiqB^ss o^ psjinbsj jsq^jnj ST ^nq pagsi^Bg a-re (q) -10 (o)(s)6frT uopoag -opun UMOp pve\ suopipuoo 3Lp Vsv^ Moqs o^ ps-tinbsj ^uo i.ou si sapniqB^ S^T pwAia o^ MSTA TS vff.vA ^Lreduioo aoLrejnsut aq^ 'sjouusq^nj •g-t? •souaon SuiAup B Suiure^qo jo Suippq JQJ pagiiBnbsip uosjad B si JSAUp (o) pire Saouson pa^irejfi S.\r\.p v SABq ^ou pip oqM uosjsd B Xq uaAUp u accident is entitled to the amount of compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal although the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time might not have a valid driving licence but would be entitled to recover the same from the owner or driver thereof. 51. It is trite that where the insurers, relying upon the provisions of violation of law by the assured, take an exception to pay the assured or a third party, they must prove a willful violation of the law by the assured. In some cases violation of crmiinal law, particularly, violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act may result in absolving the insiirers but, the same may not necessarily hold good in the case of a third party. In any event, the exception applies only to acts done intentionally or "so recklessly as to denote that ,the assured did not care what the consequences of his act might be. 13. In view of above, although we accept the legal position that the simple light motor vehicle driving licence is not valid to drive light motor vehicle (transport vehicle) but, as held hereinabove, the appellant/Insurance Company has failed to discharge its burden to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the owner of the vehicle willfully . breached the conditions of the policy. lA.___In_view of above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. SA'- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawa] 'e