|Bt! IN THE mGH COUR.T OF CHHATTISG^JiH AT BILASPUR -A.No. (S'7- /2002 "National Insurance Station Road Durg through its OfScial Branoh Manager, Taha Complex^Priya. atoiy P^SPONDENTS: -Shyam Sunder, S/o Chintaram Satnami, Aged about 35 years, .Ay.-'' ^&^^ :%'^y .••''.-s-*' R/o Village-KaraIi,TehsiI- Durg. <;- ^•'./ ^ ^^, </ ©•' ^ishan La! R/o Villags-Barela, Tehsil-Barela Durg ( C.G.) -Owner- . sh Kumar Sah S/o Dukhu Ram Sahu, ^'0 ipai-,P.S. G gaon (C.G.) Driver- ., iii-..-. -1- ISi. i »Pl4 iiissri^*" v 1 i XI-HC-78 3f^T^Tfs?Ri gsrr3n^Tsbtii<t) V *TTWIT^*ncR 35? •<II<IIM<<, ®T(1^<ie,i'K'ii'dy .'N;A:..t^?;..'?.Ty ^ 200'^ 311^14sl* ('i^t^'av) ?¥(IRKflfN3n^?T 15/02/2007 Shri A!i Asgar, counsel i<\ Shri P.P. Sahu. counsel (olaimant) and 2 Klshanlal (owrl Respondent No. 3 (drive] Learned counse! for th< Gisposed offina!!y at the stage c^ Heard. Brief facts are that ^ MP-24/C 2614 being driven by i] tumed turtle causing injuries fl passengers/elaimants preferreij learned Additional Motor Accidi common order dated 3.10.2001 as under:- (c) (d) Claimant-Shyan- [compensation av Claimant-Ramji, .avarded Rs.3,001 Claimant-Smt. [compensation a'; Ciaimant-Chhedi icompensation av ;t is not disputed bythe thatthe jll-fated Minibus was un on the date of the aGcident. Thi were passengers in the Mini bi °hl<ll<t<)1-< tllHfll ffte^l'<Rl*dl< ^srf^T311^1 r the appeltanVinsurer. for respondents No. 1 Shyam Sunder er). is absent. i parties pray that this appeai may be radmission. rn 1.12.1997, a Minibus bearing No. sspondent No. 3, upon bursting of a tyre, o the claimant/passengers. The injured appiications for compensation. The int Claims Tnbunal, Bemetara passed a and awarded compensation to the yictims 1/98- Sunder, Claim Case No. ('arded Rs.25,000/- with interest.] Claim Case No. 2/98-[compensation l)/-with interest.' IRam Bai, Claim Case No. 14/98-' 1'arded Rs.92,500/-'with interest.] Singh, Claim Case No. 17/S8- 1'arded Rs.4,000/- with interest.1 llearned counsel for the appellant/insurejr: jera policy pfinsyrance by'tFie appeliant; 1 factthatthe'ciaimantsmentionedabove |s and sustained injuries due to the bus XI-HC-78 +IINWI a»*iich 3R? "MI^ICII, aTn+l'ls, Rldl'My .%>.'A..'AO.-..%/.. * * *'* *••*•»)«•*«**»»** *'.»/»'»^; 2002_ 3<i^<fi •<a'»(li^3^^) SfI^T^iTf^lN? (iwsn^TOTw ?CTmHf?(T3n^T 2_- m<ifc'i<fl-< *ii*<ctT^'te^|'<Ri«i< ^siRffl'sn^r f' &, resDitncien tuming turtie and that the iicence for driving Hght motor v^ counsel for the appellant also coifitended wiiling to pay the entire compens^tion Accident Cjaims Tribunai. The only polnt urged by t( this appeal is that since Ramesh] I'.'Iinibus did not possess a valid| vehicles or heavy motor vehicle^ drive a light motor vehicle, the in^ in accordance with the provisions) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and have granted the right to the in^ Minibus i.e. Kishanial, respond^ under the award. it No.S/driver had a vaiid drivin.q |hicles are ateo not dlsputed. Learned that the Insurance Company is as awarded by the !earned Motor ne learned counsel for the appeliant in Kumar Sahu, the driver of the i![ fated driving iicence for driving commercial but possessed on!y a valid licence to urer had satisfactorily prove^its defence ofSection-149 reael with sub-Section (7) :herefore the learnsd M.A.C.T. ought to urer to recover from the owner of the it No. 2 the compensation paid by ;t Reliance was placed on 1 Vs. Swaran Sinah & others repc lationa! Insurance Comoanv Llmited On the other hand, S\ respondents No. 1 & 2 i.e. the c| accident was in no manner attrifct the driver and occurred solely'du) that bursting or a tyre being an i( the driver not possessing appellant/insurer could neither a\|i be given the right to recover th^ Reliance was placed on para-S^ counsel for the appe!lant. (rted in t2Q04) 3 Supreme Court Cases hri P.P. Sahu. 'earned counse! for (aimant and owner has argued that the [jtable to any negligence on .the part of ^ to the bursting of a tyre. It »vas urged Inforeseen cause having no nexus with fie requisite t/pe of Hcence, the |oid its liability to pay compensation nor same from fhe owner of the vehicle. of ths case law cited by the teamsd ..-u'- XI-HC-78 *lt*lMl Sh*lich 3^ -MI<<ICI<I, ®Tflu'is,Roitiy __ '^I.A.I^O . G^/W[ 200^ aii^i'i isitn ('i^g^^r) sn^r^rf^iw WT3I1^TsriI<t] ?TareR^f5(T3T^T —3> 'nralwfl-f ii*«'iTffte^t'<Ri^;i< ^STf^IT .3.11^1 ^ €, Havlng hea'd rival contetiti1 Case No. 1/98 and the testimot the offending vehicle, (Respor|dent ciaimants Shyam Sunder, Ramj| were travelling jn the ill-fated upon sudden bursting of tyre suddenly applied breaks, the h| matter, I am of the considered due to an unroreseen cause, i. e.1 titions, 1 have perused the record of Ciaim iy of Ramesh Kumar Sahu, the driver of No.3) and also the testimony of |, Smt. Ram Bai and Chhedhi Singh who plinibus which cteariy demonstrates that tsf the i!l fated Minibus when the drivsr linibus turned turtle. In this view of the [spinion that the accident occurred solely |sudden bursting oftyre. ]n National Insuranoe C( has dealt with such a situation irl impany Limited (supra), the Apex Court para-39. cdsts fbr itlf Q^ "Secfion 3 ofthe Aot effective drivihg ijcence drive. Section 10 of th^ prescribe forms of dri\f vehicles mentioned suy varioustypes ofvehjcles lioence for one or more (b) motOFCYcle with vehicle,(e) transport veh| of other specified descrip( the Act defines various in broad types mentioneti are "goods oarriage", motor vehicle", "invalid "medium goods vehicle|' "motor-cab", "motoreycls "semi-traiier", "tourist vehicie". In claims for of breaches with regard for consideration before driving licence for "motort vehicle] forwhicti he has| a holder of driving licenc|e driving a "maxi-oat)" "mot an obligation ona driver to hoid an the type of vehicle which he intends to Act enables the Central Government to |ng licences for various categories of ^section (2) of the said Section. The |described for which a driver may obtain a them are; (a) motorcycle without gear, (c) invaiid camage,(d):; light motor jcle, (T) road. roller, and (g) motor vehicle iption. The definition clause inSeotion 2 of |ategories of vehicles which are covered in sub-section (2) of Section 10. They 'h^avy goods vehicle", "heavy passenger light motor vehicle", "maxi-cab", "medium passenger motor vehicle", "omnibus", "private service vehjole", licle", "traotor", "trailer' and "transport ci|)mpensation for accidenis, various kinds |o the conditions of driving licenoes: arite |the Tribunal as a person possessing a. r|^ole without gear", [sic may be driying Bf |no licence. Cases mayalso arisewhere. for "light motor vehicle" is found to'be: tbr-cab" or "omnibus" for vi/htoh he tias no c^rnagi v^h XI-HC-78 |3n^T9>rf?:iNi |craT3<i^is*itii+ h ^mwi sb*11<t» 3^? '<11<11<1<1, ®Tf)y'IS,IslCII'My ••»*'»«'»•'••'•**« »*-»• »•»* */»^ 2002_ 3ii^i iiaq> (I!^3^^r) gRnwflfersn^r — iicence. In each case, decision has to be taken iicence for one type of \ 'v'ehicle, 'vas the main c faots. it is found that the some other unforeseen failures and similar other not possessing requisite allowed to avoid its !i; conditions conoeming dri] Appiying the law laid dc^ circumstances.,of the case, 1 arrl the driver of the: Minibus posses| and not for any commereial vel| was not attributable to any negli^ No. 3-Ramesh Kumar Sahu tj txSRting of a tyrewhich the owrj good condition, the breach of t| fundamental did not in any manr] and therefore the insurer cannd and the present case is not a| recover compensation from the c] In this view of the matteri In the result, the appeat is dismis »i<<(i'i<l1-<ii>«iTffteiA'<Ri^i< ^ari^irsn^T on evidenoe led before the Tribunal, a whetherthe fact ofthe driver possessing ehicle but found driving another type of r ooniributory cause of aocident. If on accident was caused solely because of or inten/ening oauses like mechanica! causes having no nexus with the driver type of licence, the insurer wiil not be ability merely for teohnical breaoh of /ing licence". wn by the Apex Court to the facts and ofthe considered opinion that althoughi sed a vaiid driving licence onlyfor L.M.V. iicie or mini bus, yet since the acoident lenoe on the partofthedriver/respondent ut occurred solely due to the sudden erofthe vehicle was required to keep in ie condition of driving licence not being er contribute to the cause of the accident it avoid its liability to pay compensation fit case. to grant the insurer .?'~right tb wnerofth&yehicte. the contention ofthe appeliant must.fail. ^-Ms$DK u ••--••.••'~-^f"nfn