INJTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC . APPEAL (•C) N0. c; q S /2011 Diviston Bend APPELLANT NON APPLICANT N0 .3 The New India Assurance Company Limited VERSUS RESPONDENT APPLICANT Prakash Sahu 85 2 Others APPEAL VALUATION AT RS 3.18,500 /- Appellant NON APPLICANT N0.3 / The New India Assurance Cothrough Its Branch Manager, Jail road, Kachahari road , Raipur, Distt Raipur,[ C.G ] Versus RESPONDENT N0 1 CLAIMENT ^/^A <%^ .^^~A a ] Prakash Sahu s/o Late Rani Krupal Sahu Aged about 42years k'O"1 .'I ^'^ >^ <?y/' ^"y ^* 'lA' ?<y .^^ <^" ^s^. "^V ^^ ^^ ~ ©l^. J^, f^v.-^ ' ^'M \\ [b) Mrs. Meena Devi, w/o Prakash Sahu Aged about 41 years. i^ -<-[e'J Praveen Sahu s/c^Late^Prakash Sahu aged about 16 years.?<'.;ft Applicant Np.(c)is minor through their ,V^ mother All residence-Veer Shivaji Nagar, Kota.TfcLana-Aamanaka.Raipur ,Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Cfs' •l^ RESPOND@TT N02 NON APPUCANT N0. l ^ (L^^^^\ y Chandan Sing s/o Nagina Singh, Shakin-Veer Shiwaji Nagar ,Kota Thana- Aaraanaka, Raipur, Tahsil and Distt-Raipur (C.G.) (Driver ofMinidoor No.-C.G.04-T/30l9) IF RESPONDENT N0.3 ^Vyendra Soni s/o Chandradev Soni NON APPLICANT N0.2 Residence-Ramnagar,Bharatnagar Raipur, Thana -Gudhiari,Distt-Raipur (C.G.) (Owner of Minidoor No.-C.G.04-T/3019) MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 AS AMENDED BY ACT OF 1994 <K-. V. HON'BLE G. naiMHAJUDDIHI, JJ. The New India Assurance Com.paiiy L/ii£ute< F'rakash Saliu and two others Mr. Deepak Gupta, counsel for the appeUaiit. Mr. Satyendra Sahu, couiisel fer fb.e claimaats/respondent l(a)(b) & (c). (13.09. 201i) <r ./ LM._Quddusi, J Heard. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Coiupaay agaia.st the impugned award dated 10.03.2011 passed by fhe VIIfh Additional Motor Accident Clauns Tribunal, Raipur, Chliattisgarh in Claim Case No.23/2008 so far as it has fastened tlie Uabflity upon the appellant. Brief facts of fb.e case as per ftie version of claimaats are tliat ou 16,09.2007 deceased Maaish Sahu was travelina ia Auto- Rickshaw beariag Regn. No. C.G.04-T/3019 owned by Vijeadra Soni, non-applicaat no.2. On. fhe way at about 2.25 p.m.., near Gurudwara the said Auto which was beiag driven bv Chandsuu Singh Non-applicaat no.l in a rash aad negBgent inanaer stn-ick agauist aTnick which was standiag on the road side, as a result of wbich, Manish Sahu feU do%in fi-oin fhe Auto aad siiccuiabe.d to the grievous injuries. At flie tune of accident, the deceased was aged about 22 years. He was worldng as :<>°%'°°%-. /y^^ "\ r•l' Mason in laarble tiles fittiag and his aaiiual iucoine was Rs.40,000/-. The claimants beiag dependents/legal representauves of the deceased have filed claun petition ii/s 163-A of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for fh.e award of total coiilpensation ofRs.4,70,000/- onvarious heads. The leamed Clauas Tribunal has held fhat the accident took place by fhe said Auto which hit agauist a stailding truck, due to which deceased Manish Sahii died; fhere was no breach of conditions of the uisurance policy aud the clamiaiits are entitted to get a total coxnpensation of Rs.3,18,500/- froia fh.e non-applicaats includiug appeUant Insurance Conipany joiafty aad severaUy. Leam.ed counsel for fhe appellan.t subinits fhat fhe driver of fhe vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license on fhe date of accident as fhe vehicle was a coiiunercial vehicle but he was baving a driviag Ucense aufhoriziug him. to drive private niotor vehicles that is LMV as also niotorcvcle with gear. For fhis purpose fhe iusuraiice conipaay has produced an official of fhe Regional Tiansport Office Raipur namely Ashok Kumar, Assistant Grade-III who has stated fhe above fact. We have perused tlie Lower Court. Records aud found tiiat fhe Insuraiice CoinT)guiv had been successful ia gettiue the records and tlie •ivitnesses produced to prove fhat fh.e driver of the vehicle ia question was not haviag valid and effective drivuis license. TIie Tribunal has coininitted an error of law in holdins tbat driver Chandau Sm.gh. was authorized to dnve cominercial vehicle which was aa auto-rickshaw ou fhe basis of fhe driving ;^ *2.0 i }•• 'r •~^ license issued to him. for driviag the light inotor vehicle which was valid from 03.02.2007 to 02.02.2027. 7. Section 14 of the Act, 1988 is rclevant here and quoted as under: "14. Cuirency oflicences to drlve niqtor vehicles.- (1) A learaer's licence issued uiider fhis Act shall, subject to the ofher provisions of fhis Act, be effective for a period of six laonths froni fh.e date ofissue oflicence. (2) A driviug Ucence issued or renewed under this Act shaU,- (a) in the case of a licence to dnve a transport vehicle, be effective for a period^of three years: Provided that in the case of licence to drive a traasport vehicle canying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one year and renewal Uiereof shaU be subject to the coudition that the driver uiidergdes one day refresher course of fhe prescribed syUabus; and (b) in. case ofaiiy ofher licence,- (i) if fhe person obtauiiag the licence, eifher origuiaILy or on renewal thereof, has not attamed the a^e of (fifiy years) on the date ofissue or, as fhe case niay be, renewal thereof- (A) be effective for a period of twenty years from. the date of such issue or reuewal; or (B) until the date on which such person attains the age of(Fif1y Years), (ii) xxxxxxxxx Provided that every driving licence shaU, notoithstandiug its expiiy under flus sub-sectiou continue to be eflecti.ve for a period of thirty days from such expiry. 8. In fhe matter of Orieatal lasurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol & others reported iti (2009) 11 SCC 336 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: "Alfhough fhe definition oflight inotor vehicle' brings' ivithia its uiubrage bottr "transport vehicle" or "onuiibus", indKputably, a distiaction between an effective driviag licence graated for transport vehicle and passenger inotor vehicle exists. The distinction between a Tight inotor vehicle' aiid a 'transport vehicle' is evident. A transport vehicle inay be a Ught inotor vebicle but for fhe 'purpose of driviag the sam.e, a distinct licence is required to be obteiaed. The distuiction between a "tran.sport vehicle" and a ...\ ^ "passenger vehicle" can also be noticed from Section 14 of fhe Act. Section 14 (2) provides for duration of a period of fhree years ia case of an effective drivin; Ucence to drive a 'transport veliicle', whereas in case of anv oth.er licence, it inav rera.am. effective for a period of twenly years. Thus, it is evident ttiat a transport vehicle m.ay toe a light inotor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the saine, a distinct licence is required to be obtaiued.......° 9. In fbe case of New ladia Assuraace Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal reported ia 2008 (1) SCC 696 itwas held fhus:- "30. Now, it is fhe case of the Insurance Coiapany fhat fhe vehicle of ftie complam.ant which inet with an accident was a ''traasport vehicle". It was subniitted that tiie insured vehicle was a "good carriage" and was fhus a "traasport vehicle". The vehicle was driven by Ram. Narain, who was aufhorized to drive light uiotor vehicle and not a transport vehicle. Siace fhe driver had no licence to drive transport vehicle in absence of necessary endorseiaent in his licence to that effect. he could not have driven Tata 709 and when fhat vehicle luet. wifh an accideat, fhe Insurance Corapany conld not be m.ade liable to pay coiapensation. 10. In the matter of New India Assiiramce Co. Itd. Vs. Roshaaben Rahemansha Fakir and another reported m 2008 (3) T.A.C. 20 (SCj Hon'ble fhe Suprerae Court repeUuig fhe subinission of leamed counsel for the rcspondent tiiat it did not matter as to whether fhe driviag licence issued for auto rickshaw was adapted for carrying passengers or goods has held tiiat the driver was not holdias an effective driving licence to drive auto rickshaw detiveiy vaa. In view of fhe above discussion, we are of the opiaion that iu the tustailt case, fhe vehicle in question i.e., Auto bearing Regn. No. C.G.04-T/3019 may be a Ught motor vehicle but for fhe purpose of driving the same as transport/coiniaercial vebicle, a distuict licence is required to be obtained aad in fhe absence of such a distinct licence, we are inclined to hold fliat the driver was not haviag valid and effective driving license ajld appeUaiit Insurance Coinpany cannot be held llable to pay fhe coinpensation to fhe claiinaats. Therefore, we set aside that part of fhe im.pugned award as also fhe findiags iclated to issue No.3 regai-ding breach and exonerate fhe Insuraiice Coinpany froin its liabitity to pay the coinpensation. However, it would be open for fhe claiuiants to realize the amount of com.pensation froia tiie owner of tlie vehicle. The amount, if deposited by the appeUaiit, shall be atlowed to be witildraivn. 13. In the resiilt, tlie appeal is ailowed. Np order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao