c^ ^ BFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH BI1ASPUR N.A.fCY N0. <7U -^" /200^ i <" ^.M t^ APPELLANTS NON-APPUCANTS ^•^'. ....>T}^y:> ^':%» 1. ^" ...'^ VZ& RESPONBEfslT CLAIMANTS 9^- 2. ^^3. RESPONOfJMT ^—4< NON-APPLICANT N0.3 " P'^Tf^ BaUu Ram S/o. Darbari Sahu^ aged about 44 years, R/o. VKt. Eirgaon, P.S. & Tal3< Beria, Dtefefe. Durg (CG) fDriver of Tata Dl ^o. CG04G9120) Smt Shobha Agrswal, W/o. Shri Vyay AgrawQi, aged afcout 40 years, R/o. Vltt. Birgaon, P.5. & 7ah. Sfirla, Oistt< Durg (CG) (Owner of Tata DI Ho. CG 04 G 9120 Smt Kunti Bai, Wido'w of La-te Dwarika Prasad Nlshaet, aged about24 Years, Subhau Ram Nishad, S/o. Ram Bagas Njshad, aged about 65 years, Smt. Ouktoni Bal, W/o. Subhau Ram Nishad, aged about 60 years, Atl are R/o. Vill. Achhoti (Urta) P.S. Uda, Tah. Oliarsjva, Oistt. Ralpur (CG). The Branch Nanager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Kacheri Chowk, Madina Buiiding, Ralpur (C.G.) flnsurer of Tata DI No. CG 04 G 9120) L MIS€E^S^NE©t}SAPPEM yNE>iR^ECT|QhLtZ30EI MffEfiR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 BY TH£BRIVER & OWNER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQAIIH AT BHASPUR M.A. (Ct N0. 707 OF 2009 APPELLANTS/ NON-APPLICANTS Ballu Raui aiid aiioUier Versus Smt. ICunti Bai and otiiei's. APPBAL UNDE2R SBCTION 173 OF THB VEmCLE^ ACT. 1988 Division Bench:Hon'ble Shri I.M. Ouddusi & Hoa*ble Sfari G. Mixihalud^Itt. AJ. Preseati Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel for tlie appellaiits. Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.4. ORAI^ ORDESR (Passed on 7th day of Septeaafcier, 2011} Per I.M. Ouddusi* J. This appeal has been ffled agaiiist fhe icapugned awai-d dated 25-02-2009 passed by the Eiglith Additioaal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (F.T.C.), Raipur (for short fhe Claiins Tribmial^ in Claim Case No. 120/2007 by the appeUants - driver aiid owner ofthe offending vehicle, !ii so far as it relates to fastening tfae Uability upon fhem to pay coinpensation to the claiQiants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09-09-2007 deceased Dwarlka Prasad Nlshad was commg firom Javen to Aclllioli (Urla.) by Hero Honda Motoreycle beat'lag reglstratlon No. C.G. 04-C.F./8776. At tlie same time, one Tata D.I. 207 bearii-ig reglstt'ation No. C.G. 04-G/9120 which was behig driven by non-applicaat No.l in a rash aiid n^ligeat maaner, dashed the motorcycle aeat" Aiiandgaon turning on fhe road of Berla- Bemetara as a result ofwhich Dwarika Pi^asad died on tlie .y^&^^ .^ .....^& /^r^^ fe ^ i '6®^j spot. Report of 1iie lixsident was lodged in tfae Police Stetion Berla, District Ralpur whei^e an offence un<ter Section 304-A of the IPC was registered agatost noa- appUcant No.l and a chaUan lias l^sen ffled before fhe Court. 3. The clamiants beuig legal heli's ofthe deceased faave filed a petltion luider Sectlon 166 oftlie Motor Vehicl^ Act (for short tlieAct') before fhe Claims Tribunal claiming a total amount of compensation of Rs.24,35,000/- for tiie death offlie deceased. 4. The learned Tribunal on a ciose scrutiny of evidenoe led, material placed and submissions made by tlie paitles, lias awai'ded a sum of Rs.4,19,000/- against the aon" applicants Joinfly and severally alojn^g wlfli liiterest@ 7.5% per annum fix>m fhe date of applicatlon tUl its payment. 5. We have pei'used records of the Claiiais Trlbiuial as also the impugned award aad fomid fhait the Claims Tribunal has fastened tfae llablllty upon flie appeflajats driver aiid owner of the offending vehicle on the gromid that the driver was not having valld and efifectwe drivi.ng Ucence on tiie date of accideiit 6. In this regard, we have fouiMi certein diociuneiits 011 record; firsfly the dociunent filed by fhe Instran<® Company itself l.e. letter aiid secondly fhe cerfiiflcate giviiig paiticiilars ofthe driviog Ucence oftlie driver issued by the Ucencmg autliority, Dui^, BIiUai. The letter of Parlkshit Tiwari, Advocate addressed to Divisional Manager with regard to ffle No. 15230/L/219/08< The partlculars ghren by fhe Ucenciag authority, Dm'g, BNlai a£ealso given to Shri Parikslilt Tlwari, Advocate. 7. The drivmg Ucence of the drlver Balliiram Sahu shows fliat he was authoriaed to di'ive Llght Motor Vehicle, Transport Vehicle aiid Heavy Goods Veliiele. The origkial ^ f:'..y ;^" 3 Ucence was issued on 14-09-1988 and was reiiewed fixxm tinietotime. 8. Fix»m tlie abowe quoted particulars, it is clear that the date ofissue ofdrlvu^ liceiice was on 14-09-1988 aiid tlie driver was autfaorized to di'ive the Traasport yeliicle and Heavy Goods Vetucle (HGV) w.e.f. 15-02-2002 and tl^ Ucence was renewed on 13-03-2001 up to 14-02-200$, 14-02-2008 aiid thereafter on 14-02-2011 i.e. fw tfaree years eveiy time. According to (his document, the driver Ballu Ram Sahu was aufhorized to drive Light Motor Vehlcle, Ti'aiisjx>rt Vehicle and Heavy Goods Vehicle. 9. Heavy Goods Vehicle, Uglit Motor VeUcte aad Transport Vehlcle have been deflned ui sub sectlous (16), (21) mid 47 of Section 2 oftiie Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. "(16) "heayy goods vefaicle** means any goods carriage tlie gi'oss vehide weight ofwliich,ora tractor or a road-roUei' the uiiladen weight of eifher ofwhich, exceeds 12,000 kilograoas, (21) "Uglit motor vehicle!l> ineaas a tt'ansport vehlcle or omnibus fhe> gross vehicle weight of eitiier which or a motor car or tractor or road roller and unladen weight ofaiisy ofwhich, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms; (47) "traiisport veliicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, ssi edue^ional uistitution bus or a private seivice vehicle." 10. The drlver of flie vehicle was dfivmg gcxxla cominercial carrying vehlde and fhe Insuuranee policy was also for goods carrymg couunercial velilcle wliich was Tata D.I. 207. Therefore, tlie issue that Itie driver was not haying valid aiid etfectwe driving Ucejace on ffeie date of acGident lias not beea dealt witli properly aad tlie same is [\0 " '^, ^r' Uable to be set aside. Besides tlils, whether there w&s violation of conditlons of iiism'aace poliey has also aot been dealt with properly. la view of tiie above, if fbe Claims Trlbunal had any doubt in muid, the Uceneiiig authority or any responsible pei-son trom fhe office of Ucencing autliority, Durg Bhilal could be summoned along wlth r^ords but fhat has not been dojae. Tlierefoi'e, we allow fhis appeal and set aslde tlie liabiU.ly part fastened upon fhe appellants and also set aside fhe fijadlng 011 Issue Nos. 7 & 8. The matter is remitted back to tlie Tribiinal concerned to decide those issues afi^esh and thei'eafter oiily tlie Uability to pay compensation shaU be ftxed. 11. Needless to mentlon fhat tfae parties stooll be afllowed to amend (he pleadlngs, adduce futfher evidence, file documents or get the documents vertfled etc. aiid tlTiereafter, awai'd shall be made a&'esh. 12. The parties shaU appear before tlie G3aiias Tribuaal on 12-10-2011. The records of the Tribunal shaM be sent back wifliout aiiy fiu'tiier delay. 13. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M-Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Kvr