QEI' Tg) cf^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILAspUR M.A.(C)No. 11^4 /2009 Oivlsion Benck APPELLANT ^EFENDANT N0.2 •^ ...^^ »>^- *,9*.' l^. '^ 4:'6 IFFCO- TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ^^\ 34 Nerhru Place, New Delhi -110019 ' -^ through the Branch Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd, 3rd Floor 345-347, Lalganga Shopping Mal, G.E Road Raipur (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS / «/" ^ ^- Santoshpuri Goswami S/o Shri Narbadapuri Goswami, Aged about 30 years. R/o Ramesh Nagar, Bhanpuri.P.S. Khamtarai, Tah.- District -Raipur(C.G.). Maniram, S/o Parasram Giri, Aged about 23 years, R/o Gondwara Naharpara, Raipur, Police Station-. Khamtarai, Tha. - Tah.- District - Raipur(C.G.). \^^' MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 HIGH COURTOF CHHATTJSQARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'bleShri I.R4. Quddusi, & Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. APPELLANT M.A. (C)No.l 124 of 2009 IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. Versus RESPONDENTS Santosh Puri Goswami and another. Appearance: Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, counsel for the appellant. Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri,counsel for respondent No. 1. Shri Satyendra Sahu, counsel for respondent No. 2. Foilowing I. M. Quddusi, J. ORAL ORDER (02/02/2011) oral orcier of the Court was passed by This appeal has been filed by the Iffco Tokio Generai Insurance Co. Ltd. against the impugned award dated 17/03/2009 of the XII Addjfionaj Motor Acddent Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raipur (C.G.) passed in Claim Case No. 38/2008 only to the extent it imposed a liabiljty to pay compensation uponthe Insurance Company. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15/03/2008 at about 9:00 A.M. applicanVclajmant was going on Ring Road No.2 in his Bajaj Motorcycle bearing Registration No. C.G. 04 CQ 7583 when he reached near Madras Road Lines, Police Station, Khamtarai Raipur a Mahindra & Mahindra champion cargo auto bearing registration No. C.G. 04 J-8846 being driven rashly and negligently coming from front side dashed the motorcycle and caused the accident. Appljcant/claimant received grievous injuries on his right leg. eyes. face and chest. He was admitted to Dr. Kedar Agrawal Nursing Home for treatment, he remained there for four days. From there for better treatment he was taken to Ramkrishna Care Hospitai. Rajpur. Hls right leg was amputated. He was working jn private factory ancf used to ^w.^f.^^^ //^ -^r earn Rs.5000/- per month. Claimant has daimed compensation of Rs.15.25,0(X)/-. 3. We have perused the Lower Court Record and found that the driver of the offending vehicle namely Maniram Miri was having a driving licence to drive a light motor vehide for private purpose which is valid upto 07/11/2025. Original date of issue 17/01/2007 and valid upto 07/11/2025, therefore the driving licence issued to the driver was for more than three years and it cannot be said that it was a driving licence for driving the commercial motor vehide or goods vehicle, The Insurance Poijcy shows that the vehicle was insured which was a three wheeler goocis carrying vehicle and there was insurance package policy for that bearing registration No. CG 04 J 8846. The owner of the vehicle is Mani Ram Miri i.e. the driver also, therefore there was clear cut breach of conditions of insurance policy. The driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence. 4. In the matter of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and another, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 2S3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus in paragraph 10 as under:- "Section 10 of the Act provides for classes of the driving licence. Different classes of vehscle have been defined In different provisions of Motor Vehicies Act. The "transport vehicle" is defined in Section 2(47) of the Act to mean a public service vehide, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. We have noticed hereinbefore the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 41. We havo also noticed the notification issued by the Central Government in this behalf. Th©sald notification clearly postulates that a threQ- wheeled vehicle for transport of passengers or goods comes within the purview of Ciass 5 of the Table appended thereto. The licence granted in favour of the said Salim Amadbhai goes to show that the same was granted for a vehicle other than the transport vehicte. It was valid from 13-5-2004 to 12-5-2024. Section 14(2)(a) provides that a driving licence issued or renewed under the Act shall, in case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle will be effectjve for a period of three years whereas in the case of any other vehicle it can be issued or renewed for a period of 20 years from th©date of issuance or renewal. The fact that the licence was granted for a period of 20 years, thus, clearly shows that Salim Amadbhai. driver of the vehicle, was not granted a valid driving licence for driving a transport vehlcle." % - 3 - 5 In the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol & others reported in (2009) 11 SCC 356 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: "Although the definition of 'light motor vehicle' brings within its umbrage both "transport vehicle" or "omnibus", indisputably, a distinction between an effective driving licence granted for transport vehicle and passenger motor vehicle exists. The distinction between a 'light motor vehicle' and a 'transport vehicle' is evident. A transport vehiclo may be a light motor vehiolo but for tho purposo of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained. The distinction bQtween a 'transport vQhiclo" and a "passenger vehicle" can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Act. Section 14 (2) provides for duration of a period of three years in case of an effective driving licence to drive a 'transport vehicle', whereas in case of any other licence, it may remain effective for a period of twonty years. Thus, it is evident that a transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle buf for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct Ijcence is required to be obtained......." 6. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has erred in shifting the liability to pay compensation upon the Insurance Company. Therefore, we allow this appeal and set-aside that part of the award by which the Insurance Company has been directed to pay compensation. However. the compensation shall be realized from the owner of the vehicle. 7. On the request of learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle we make it clear that we have not considered the question of quantum as no cross objection or any appeal filed by the owner is before us. 8. However, in case the amount of compensation has already been deposited or paid by the Insurance Company, it will be open for the insurance Company-appellant to realize the same from the owner of the vehicle. 9. No order as to costs. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge K/r