IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC.APPEALra N0./J?0?L/2009 ^. . . MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR ViAiICLES ACT. 1988 APPELLANT INSURER .....^ •:"^^"\^ w K^f^ {^••" ^, ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited, Registered office: ^<^)iCICi Bar^K: -rowers, uanara-Kuna, Complex, Mumbai, 4000 51, through its Legal Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, 3rd Floor, G.E. Road, Kaipur ((J.u.j. VERSUS RESPONDBNTS : J.. Rambakas s/o Ramgahan, aged about CLAIMANTS 45 years, ? 2. Phulpati w/o RAmbakas, aged about 43 years. Both by caste- Gond, R/o village RAjkheta Harijanpara, P.S. Basantpur, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Surguja (C.G.). DRIVER 3. J0WNER 4. Somar Sai s/o Kalam Sai Uranv, aged about 25 year, Occupation Driver, R/o village Budha Bagicha, Rajpur, P.S. Rajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). Prafull Polai s/o Khaliya Polai, R/o Mahamaya Stors, Gurudwara Complex, Gudaripara, Chirmiri, District Korea (C.G.) ^^ APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 3,70,000/- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH. BILA8PUR DB: HON*BLB I.M. QUDDUSI & HON'BLB N.K. AGRAWAL, JJ M. A (CI. No. 1807 OF 2009 Vs. MISC. APPEAL U/S 173 OP THB MOTOR VBHICLBS ACT. 1988 APPEARANCB: Mr. Saurabh Sharma and Mr. Adilya Sharma, counsel for fhe appeUants, Mr. D. N. Prajapati coiiasel for respondents 1 & 2, Mr. Pushpa Dwivedi, counsel for respondeat no.4, JUDOMENT (ORALI (03.12.2010) Per I.M. QUDDU8I. J 1. This appeal has been fited by fhe Insuranee Compaay against fhe impugned award dated 30.06,2009 passed by fhe AddL Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Pratappur, Distt. Sm^uja (Chhattisgarh) in Claim Case No.33/2008 awarding Rs.3,70,000/- to fhe claimants. Brief facts of fhe case as per fhe version of fhe claunants are fhat on 02.06.2008 m the earUer hours at about 4.00 a,m,, non-appUcant no.3 was drivmg fhe Dumper bearing Regn. No. C.G.16-A/1146 rashly aad negU^ently and dashed Mansingh ia damLmar plant as a result of which Man Siagh has died on fhe spot. The deceased was aged about 22 years aad was eaming Rs.6000/- per monfh by doiag labour and carpentiy works, The claimants being parents as also legal APPBLLANT ICICI Lombard General Insuraiice Compaiiy Ltd. RBSPONDBMT8 Rambakas aad ofbers ^-l^fc /. ,W..^... - ^5;"^ representatives of fhe deceased, filed claim petition claiaiuig conipensation to fhe tune ofRs.27,76,000/- on various heads. 3. The Clamis Tribunal has held fhat fhe ofifending vehicle bearmg Regn.No.C.G. 16-A/1146 was mvol^ed in the accident; respondent no,3 Soniarsai was driviag it raashly aad negUgenfly aad dashed Maasiagh, as a result ofwhich he has died. The Tribunal has further held fhat the deceased was earaing Rs,3000/- per monfh aad after deducting l/3rd> the aanual dependency of the deceased was assessed as Rs.24,000/-. The Tribunal has appUed multiplier 15 to the aanual loss of dependency aad worked out the total loss of dependency as Rs.3,60,000/-. Besides tihis, fhe Tribunal has graated Rs.10,000/- under ofher heads. TIius a total compensation was fixed as Rs,3,70,000/aN which the claimante are entifled to receive from. non-appUcaats* 4. Learaed counsel for fhe appeUant has chaUeiiged fhe awand on two grounds. The first is fhat pennissioxi u/s 170 of the M.V, Act was wrongly rejected. The ofher poiat is fhat fhe driver of the vehicle ia question was not having valid aad effective driviag Ucense authoriziag him to drive fhe goods vehicle aiid fherefore, fhe appeUant iasurance Compaay is not Uable to pay coiapensation. 5. Wifh regard to fhe first coatention, we have perused fhe records and found that there is no order ofthe MACT rejectmg the appUcation u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appUcation was moved on 17.12.2008 on which reply was dirccted to be ffled by the non-applicanfs 1 & 2 and fhe Tribunal fixed for 30th December. 2008 for disposal of fhat .--^^1" .^.."JK.. "% application. On 30.12.2008, the application was not decided aad fhe same remamed pending till disposal of the claica petition. The appellaat could have pressed fhe appUcation on subsequent dates but they did not do so aad fhus the application rcmaxaed undecided. Therefore, no order rejectmg the appUcation was passed aad it will be presiimed for aU purposes that fhe appellaat did not press fhe said appHcation. Hence no reUef caa be granted to the appeUaat ia fhis regaxd by this Court ia the appeal. 6. Wifh rcgard to second cbntention that is fhe driver of fhe vehicle naniely Soniar Sai was not holdiag aa efifective aiid vatid driviag Ucense haviag authorization to drive fhe goods vehicle. We have perused fhe lower court record. Though in Para 18 of fhe award, learaed MACT has mentioned fhat the driviag liacense for heayy goods vehicle was valid on 28.8.2007, but we see fhat fhe fmdiag is perverse for fhe followiag reasons: 7. Initially the driving Ucense No.2270/ABR/03 was issued to Somar Sai for light motor vehicle on 13.6,2003 but heavy goods vehicle was added wifh effect from 28.8.2004. Thereafter, renewal of that license for Ught motor vehicles as weU as heavy goods vehicle was made exacffy after 3 years on 28.8.2004 which was effective tffl 28.8.2007 and thereafter the Ucense became valid upto 28.8.2010. This has been mentioned ia the computenzed driviag Ucnese of Somar Sai which Ex.D-I. Thereforc the findiag that the driver was not having valid aad efifective driving Ifcacese oa the dsite of accident i.e.; 02.06.2008 is mcorrect aad perverse. The Rao 8. driviag Mcense to drive fhe l^ht motor vehicle as weH as heavy goods vehicle was vaUd fiom 28.8.2004 to 28.8.2007 and tfaen from 28.8.2007 to 28.8.2010 and as such on the date of accident, the driver ofthe vehicle ia question was having valid and efFective driving Ucense. Thus this contention also fails. Since therc is no permission u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is not open for the appeUant to chaUenge the question of quantum fixed by the MACT. In view of the abowe, therc is no merit in this appeal. The appeal fails and is hereby disxmssed, No order as to costs, Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge -Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge