<r ELLED IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C) No.-^ ^-S /c^. . . Oivision Bencli APPELLANT ~7 BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, RAJNANDGAON, PERMANENT ADDRESS- ORIENTAL HOUSE, ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI. Vrs. ^SPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS :- ^ .^".^ "L\': €^^ ..•"' y NIRMALA BAI WIDOW OF SANTOSH YADAV AGE 26 YRS. YASHWANT KUMAR S/0 SANTOSH YADAV AGE 07 YRS. MAMATA D/0 SANTOSH YADAV AGE 03 YRS. MINOR THROUGH MOTHER NIRMALA BAI, GUARDIAN RESIDENT OF SAHDEV NAGAR, RAJNANDGAON, TAHSIL & DISTRICT - RAJNANDGAON (C.G.) RESPONDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS :- (^ ^ ^t. ^). 6, DALLU RAM S/0 PUNAU GOND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAPUTOLA, THANA - CHICHOLA, DISTT. RAJNANDGAON (C.G.), KUNWAR LAL SAHU S/0 VISHAL SAHU, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAGARKOHRA, THANA - CHICHOLA, DISTT. RAJNANDGAON (C.G.), JAGAT YADAV S/0 JOHAN YADAV 50 YRS.,RESIDENT OF SAHDEVNAGAR, RAJNANDGAON (C.G.) SMT. SUSHILA YADAV W/0 JAGAT YADAV AGE 42 YRS., RESIDENT OF S4HDEVNAGAR, RAJNANDGAON(C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTI01J173 QF MQTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi and Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Appellant Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.873 of 2008 Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. versus Respondents Nirmala Bai and others Present: Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for the appetlant. Shri Yogesh Chandra, counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Abhishek Saraf, counsel for respondents No.4 and 5. Shri Abhishek Sharma, counsel for respondents No.6 and 7. Miscellaneoys^ApDeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ORAL ORDER (Passedon31stMarch,2011) Per I.M. Quddusi, J.: Heard. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the Oriental tnsurance Company Limited against the award dated 25-2-2008 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No.84/2007 challenging fastening of liability of payment of compensation upon it. 3. Case of the claimants, as stated in the claim petition, in short, is that on the date of accident, i.e., 15-11-2006, deceased Santosh Yadav had gone to work as a Hammal in a Metador bearing registration No.CG 08 ZB 0178 being driven by non-claimant Dallu Ram. The deceased and other Hammals were carrying paddy in the said Metador from Village Pinkapar to Maharaj'pur Society Lalutola. \ At that time, Dallu Ram drove the Metador rashly and negligently and turned the Metador turtle near Masjid in Village Lalutola. As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his person and died on the spot. The incident was reported to the Police Station Chichola. The claimants, i.e., wife, son and daughter of the deceased preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.30,20,000/-. 4 . The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,43,000/- in favour of the claimants holding liability to satisfy the award on non- claimants No.2 and 3, i.e., the owner and the insurer of the vehicle in question, jointly and severally. 5. We have perused the record of the Claims Tribunal. The vehicle in question was a light goods vehicle (L.G.V.), which was insured on the date of accident by the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the driver of the vehicle in question was not having an effective and valid driving licence on the date of accident. In this regard, witness of non-claimant/insurance company, namely, Ashwini Kumar Awadhiya, Assistant Grade-111, working in the Regional Transport Office, Raipur was examined as NAW-1, who has stated that the driver Dalluram Netam was issued driving licence for driving motor cycle and L.M.V. (light motor vehicle) for the period from 29-1-1997 to 22-5-2004. Later on, he was granted licence for driving heavy goods vehicle for the period from 6-12-2006 to 5-12-2009. The date !- • -'-J Y ^ '^ ^ <• ^' ^^^^ of accident is 15-11-2006, on which date he was not having an effective and valid driving licence, as he was not having a licence for driving any vehicle for the period from 23-5-2004 to 5-12-2006. He had also not got his earlier driving licence renewed during this period. 7. In view of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the driver of the vehicle in question was not having an effective and valid driving licence on the date of accident, i.e., 15-11-2006. The Claims Tribunal has fastened liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/insurance company holding that once a person has got driving licence and knows drivjng, he cannot forget the driving and, therefore, it cannot be said that the cfriver was not knowing to drive the vehicle. We cannot understand this logic as under the Statute a person can drive a motor vehicle only under an authority, i.e., through a driving licence. NAW-1 Ashwini Kumar Awadhiya has stated that the driver of the vehicle in question was not issued any driving licence for the period from 23-5-2004 to 5-12-2006. He was granted driving licence to drive heavy goods vehicle forthe first time onlyon 6-12-2006. hle was not granted licence. to drive even light goods vehicle. 8. Therefore, the liability upon the appellant/insurance company to pay compensation has wrongly been fastened by the Claims Tribunal. 9. In view of the above, we allow the miscellaneous appeal in part only to the extent that the appellant/insurance company shall : f- < '••-. ..-—^^ "^ .^^s^- s ^ {,tl not be liable to pay the compensation and in this regard the part of the impugned award by which the insurance company has been held liable to pay the compensation is set aside. Rest part of the impugned award shall remain intact. If the amount deposited by the appellanVinsurance company in the Claims Tribunal is still in deposit, the same shall be refunded to it. If any amount is paid to the claimants, it will be open for the appellant/insurance company to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in question. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopat