IN THE HlbH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S APPELLANTS 1) /dWNERS ^^ '^.J^ ^" RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS ^ INSURRER M.A.(C.) No..^.^/..../2010 Suresh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Dashrath Sahu, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Saragaon Main Road Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.) (Alleged Vehicle Tata Magic No. C.G. 04-T/3649 ofOwner) Narendra Kumar Dewangan S/o Sukhchand Dewangan, Aged about 19 years, R/o Chandhi Chowk Saragaon, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.) (Alleged Vehicle Tata Magic No. C.G. 04-T/3649 ofDriver) Versus 1) Smt. Triveni Bai aged about 48 years, W/o Late Girjanand Tiwari 2) / Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari aged about 29 years, S/o Late Girjanand Tiwari Respondent No.l and 2 are resident of village Matiya Post Dodikala, Police station Dharsiwa, District Raipur (C.G.) 3) Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Companv Limited Vidhan Sabha Pandri Road, Pandri Raipur (C.G.1 (Alleged Vehicle Tata Magic No. C.G. 04-T/3649 of Insurer) c.' ^- .^-•- MEMO OF MISCEUANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTIONJ.23 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C.) No. 670/2010 APPELLANTS Suresh Kumar Sahu and another Versus RESPONDENTS Smt. Triveni Bai and others SB:- HON»BLESHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT:- Shri C.R. Sahu, Advocate, for appellants. Shri Devarshi Thakur, Advocate, for the respondents No. 1 and2. Shri Anant Bajpai, Advocate, on behalf of Shri S.S. Rajput, Advocate, for the respondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER (4-2-2011) 1, With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This appeal has been filed by owner and driver of the offending vehicle against the award dated 16-12-2009 passed by the Xth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 19/2009 whereby learned Tribunal has awarded in favour of the claimants an amount of Rs. 1,99,000/- 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 effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that on 11-10-2008 at about 1.45 pm, deceased Girjanand Tiwari was going on his bicycle towards village Saragaon. Near Vishnu Hotel, village Jarauda, a Tata Magic vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-T/3649 being driven by the appellant No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the bicycle from behind, as a result, Girjanand Tiwari sustained grievous bodily injuries and died. The claimants being unfortunate widow and son of the deceased filed claim. petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming Rs.7,03,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased. 4. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made passed the award as above. Hence this appeal. 5. Shri C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit, although the vehicle was commercial vehicle but was light niotor vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was possessing light motor vehicle driving licence and the Tribunal has wrongly exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground that endorsement of transport vehicle is necessary in the above licence. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit, in the absence of any endorsement of transport vehicle, the licence was not valid and this fact was well within the knowledge of the owner, despite that, he engaged the driver. Therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability to pay compensation. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record as also the impugned award. 8. 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 Coinpany 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 of 20 years, a presumption, therefore, arises that it was meant for the purpose of a vehicle other than a transport vehicle. ^8% 16. Had the driving licence had been granted for transport vehicle, the tenure thereofcould not have exceeded to three years. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Annappa 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 terms: "20. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that cctransport vehicle" has now been substituted for "medium goods vehicle" and "heavy goods vehicle?\ The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time to cover both "light passenger carriage vehicle" and (clight goods carriage vehicle". A driver who had a valid licence to drive a Ught motor vehicle, therefore, was authorized to dri^e a light goods vehicle as welL 21. the amendments carried out in the Rules having^ 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 oflicences granted in terms of the 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)SC 246; 2008 (1) SCC 696/, stated: "30. Now, it is the case of the Insurance Company that the vehicle ofthe complainant whichmet 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 vehicle and not a transport vehicle. Since the driver had no licence to drive transport vehicle in absence of necessary endorsement in his Ucence 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 Uable to pay compensation. XXX XXX XXX, 37. The argument ofthe 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 licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, referring to various provisions ofthe 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).Clauses (14), (21), (28) and (47) of Section 2 make it clear that ifa vehicle is "light motor vehicle", but falls under the category of transport vehicle, the driving Ucence has to be duly endorsed under Section 3 ofthe Act Ifit 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 have driven Tata 709 in absence Of requisite endorsement and the Insurance Company could not be held lidble. 38. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. We a/so find that the Di^trict Forum considered the question in its proper perspectiue and held that the vehicle driven by Ram Narain was covered by the 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 ^/'^ !»J 9. the contrary, the case ofthe 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 Insurance [JT 1999 (6) SC 423 ; 1999 (6) SCC 620 stating : "41. in ourJudgment, 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 offact 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 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. 18. From the discussions made hereinbefore, 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 of conditions of the Insurance is, therefore, apparent on theface ofthe records." In view of the above referred dictum of Supreme Court, it is clear that the driver of the To.to. Magic vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the x X.. ::^""": ^ 6 same in breach of conditions of the policy, and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation to the claimant. 10. The appeal being devoid of substance fails and is dismissed. (^l Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge