C-C- ^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR // Misc. Appeal (C) No_iM /2009 pjvision8en.ch Appellant Claimant ^^ .-•--;:.'-:"£^'' '^^- ';l......--y:' ,ee®t;c' Mohan Sahu, aged about 35 years, S/o Sadhuram Sahu, by Caste Teli, R/o M.G Ward, Tahsil and Distt. Kanker Versus Respondents 1. Roopendra Jain, aged about 31 yeas, Driver and owne<r^> S/o Phoolchand By Caste Kalar, T/o Village Kanapond, Thana and Tahsil Charama, Disst. Kanker d- Insurer 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Adarsh BalMandir, Main Road, Tahsil and Thana Dhamtari APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 _1_. ~w: ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR Appellant Respondents Appellant Respondents Appellant Respondents M.A. (CVNo. 939 of 2009 Mohan Sahu Versus Roopendra Jain & others M.A. (Q No. 337 of 2010 Versus Insurance Company - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Mohan Sahu 85 another M.A. (QNo. 635 of 2010 Versus Insurance Company - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Sona @ Uday Pratap Singh Thakur 8s another M.A. (Q No. 636 of 2010 Appellant Insurance Company - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Versus Respondents Kumari Budhiya Bai & another M.A. (Q No. 638of2010 Appellant Insurance Company - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Versus Respondents Smt. Godawari Bai 8& another M.A. (QNo. 639 of 2010 Appellant Insurance Company - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Versus Respondents Budharu Ram Nishad & another AND M.A. (QNo.634of2010 Appellant Insurance Company - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Versus Respondents Smt. Devshila Netam 85 others x ^. DB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice I. M. Quddusi 85 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mislira, JJ Shri Parag Kotecha, AdvocateTor the appellant/claimant/respondent - Mohan Sahu. Shri Sudhir Agarwal, Advocate for the Oriental Insurance Company. Shri Soinkant Verma, Advocate for the Driver & Owner-Rupendra Jain. Shri U. P. S. Sahu, Advocate for the respondent - Smt. Godawari Bai. None for the other respondents - Sona, Ku. Budhiya Bai, Budhuram Nishad and Smt. Devshila Netam. O R D ER (Oralt (Passed on this 4th day of April, 2011) Petl. M. Quddusi,J. --, The aforementioned seven appeals i.e. M.A.(C) Nos. 939/2009 & 337/2010 (Claim Case No. 92/2008), 635/2010 (Claim Case No. 143/2008), 636/2010 (Claim Case No. 108/2008), 638/2010 (Claim Case No. 141/2008), 639/2010 (Claim Case No. 93/2008) and 634/2010 (Claim Case No. 129/2008) are being decided by this common order as they arise from the accident occurred on 22.4.2008 at about 12.30 p.m. in front of Dhruv Petrol Pump, Kanker, by the JC' . <* —'., Jeep, bearing registration No. C.G. 19-T/0274, which was being driven and owned by Rupendra Jain and was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company. It was submitted by the respective claimants that the offending vehicle - jeep was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and it struck against a road side Neem tree. M.A.(C) No. 939/2009 has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the award, whereas M.A.(C) Nos. 337/2010, 635/2010, 636/2010, 638/2010, 639/2010 and 634/2010 have been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company on the ground of liability as well as quantum. Learned Claims Tribunal did not grant permission under Section 170 \ B w ^^s- !NIIIIN*wii^ 8. of the Motor Vehicles Act to the Insurance Company, which is also under challenge in these appeals. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the Lower Court Records. During the pendency of M.A.(C) No. 939/2009 appellant/claimant Mohan Sahu, who was also the respondent No.l in M.A.(C) No. 337/2010, died on 12.8.2009 and I.A.No.l 85 4 have been filed in these appeals for substitution of Smt. Kaushilya Bai, W/o Late Mohan Sahu in his place. The applications are allowed. Necessary amendments be made in the cause title ofboth theappeals. Claim Case Nos. 92/2008 (Mohan Sahu) and 95/2008 (Laxmi Bai) were filed by the claimants on the ground that their brother Santosh Kumar Sahu was going on a motorcycle, bearing registration No. C.G. 19-T/0274 and died in the aforesaid accident. Learned Claims Tribunal allowed both the claim petitions in part and awarded a sum ofRs. 65,000/- to each claimant (Total Rs. 1,30,000/-). Claim Case No. 143/2008 (Sona alias Udai Pratap Singh Thakur) was filed by the claimant on the ground that he was a pillion rider on the motorcycle, bearing registration No. C.G. 04-CL/6863 and sustained grievous injuries in the above accident. Learned Claims Tribunal awarded a sum ofRs. 27,150/~ as compensation. Claim Case No. 108/2008 (Ku. Budhiya Bai) was filed by the claimant on the ground that she was an occupant of the aforesaid jeep and sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. Learned Claims Tribunal awarded a sum ofRs. 20,720/- as compensation. Claim Case No. 141/2008 (Smt. Godawari Bai) was field by the claimant on the ground that she was an occupant of the aforesaid ^ ^ •^> .:t .^/ jeep and sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. Learned Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 63,100/- as compensation. 9. Claim Case No. 93/2008 (Budharu Ram Nishad) was field by the claimanton the ground that his wife (Sulo Bai), who was an occupant of the aforesaid jeep, died due to the accident. Learned Claims Tribunal awarded a sum ofRs. 1,06,250/- as compensation. 10. Claim Case No. 129/2008 (Smt. Devshila Netam, Ku. Sadhna & minor Bhupendra) was field by the claimants on the ground that Swaroop Kumar Netam, who was an occupant of the aforesaid jeep, died due to the accident. Learned Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,53,200/~ as compensation. II. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanker has passed the impugned awards dated 23.5.2009, as described in brief, in the foregoing paragraphs. 12. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the driver Y: • • • .. • . • • • • ' • of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident therefore the insurance corapany is not liable to pay the amount of compensation, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 13. We have perused the insurance policy and the driving licence. The vehicle was a commercial jeep but the package policy for Zone - B was issued for passenger carrying commercial vehicle, four-wheeler. 14. Earlier a duplicate licence was issued by the Licensing Authority, Raipur, which was filed by the driver of the vehicle on which it was wrongly mentioned by the Licensing Authority, Raipur that the original Licensing Authority was Sambalpur, Orissa, which was valid up to 30.12.2010, whereas it was in fact issued from the R.T.O of Ganjam Chattarpur (Orissa). Thereafter, the driver filed a duplicate driving licence, obtained on the basis ofthe record of original licence, ,,^'J..::"^^ fe'A •t,, '^^1^". ••;;•;' ^,.' --^'^/ 15. 16. issued by the Licensing Authority of Ganjam Chattarpur. Though it was stated that the office of Sambalpur had not issued the driving licence, but that was not relevant in view of the licence issued by Ganjam Chhattarpur and filed before the Tribunal by the driver/owner. One more driving licence was filed by the driver/owner, subsequently, in which there is authorization to drive transport vehicle but it was for 20 years i.e. 1.3.2000 to 29.2.2020. The authorization to drive transport vehicle is issued only for three years and not more than that. Therefore, if the driving licence to drive the transport vehicle was also bearing authorization to drive a commercial vehicle, then different particulars should have been given in the driving licence but there is absence of the same. Further, the insurance company has not produced any witness from the office of the licensing authority, Ganjam Chattarpur to prove as to whether the driving licence was a valid andeffective driving licence on the date of the accident or not. Therefore, in our opinion true facts should come out and that can only be possible ifthe matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for determination of facts afresh. At this stage learned counsel for the Insurance Company raised objecfion that the permission under Section 170 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not granted and the application was wrongly rejected. The order rejecting the application is set aside and it will be open for the Insurance Company to move fresh application which shall be considered and decided by the Tribunal. In view of the above, we allow these appeals in part, set aside the impugned awards passed by the Claims Tribunal and remit the rnatters to the M.A.C.T. concerned to consider and decide the claim lr ,-1 ^-:^.,^. ^ -^ ?i-^\l '%, petitions afresh on merits, in the light of the obser/ations made herein above. 17. • Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce further evidence again in support oftheir pleadings and may file further documents and get the documents verified etc. Thereafter, the decision shall be made by the Tribunal on merits. 18. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 3.5.2011. 19. The amount which is already in deposit shall be kept in the form of fbced deposit in any nationalized Bank for a period of one year. The amount shall not be disbursed till the fresh decision is made by the Tribunal. 20. The Registry is directed to send back the papers, requisitioned from the Tribunal, forthwith. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Thakur