INTHE HIGH COURT JUbICATURE AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal fONo. ^^ OF 2007 APPELLANT ^^(Insurer) Vs RESPONDENTS: (^Mimant) ^^- ^ ^' . ^^ y\ .^^" ^y :^J:: ^' (Driver of vehicle) Jruck No.CG-12- ^' ZC-0334 ->< Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., , Kutchery Chowk, Raipur (Wrongly mentioned Rampur), through bivisional Manager, On'ental Insurance Company Limit'ed, Infront of ^-(igh Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) 1. ,Mst. Munnibai, W/o Late Jawaharlal Kewat, aged 48 years 2^-Tejram S/o Late Jawaharlal Kewat, aged 28 years 3,, Kashiram S/o Late ^' Jawaharlal Kewat, aged 26 years (All Respondent No.l to 3 residence of Village Lohsara, P.S.Bijuri, Dist., Anuppur (M.P.), Respondent No.l presently residing at Kewat Para, Juna Bilaspur, Tehshil &. Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4,. Girija Prasad Giri S/o i/r ~ . • Bhola Prasad Giri,aged 38 years, R/o Amorpur, P.5. Bahri, Dist. Sidhi (M.P.);-> Presently residing at C/o Venkat Kumar Kedia, Kedia / (Owner of vehicle) Truck No.CG-12- ZC-0334 Company, Manendragarh (C.G.) 5,^Venkat Kumar Kedia, S/o Radheyshyam Kedia, aged 45 years, R/o Kedia Company, Manendragarh, Permanent Address Bijuri, Tehsil, Kotma, Dist. Anuppur (C.G.) •^ APPEAl^UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHCILES ACT. 1988 AGAINST THE AWARD/ORbER bATED 09.04.2007 PASSED i. /2 IN CLAIM CASE NO.tflll/2005 BY THE 9th UPPER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (FTCY BILASPUR. (BENCH PRESIbEb OVER BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER SHRI A.K. SINGHAL) 'N <^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATnS6ARH AT BILASPUR bIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDOUSI A HON'BLE MR.NAWAL laSHORE MAWMAL. JJ. AoMHant Respondants M.A. [cl No.926/2007 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mst. Munnibai & others ^rescnt; Mr. ^hanshyam Patel, Advocatc for the appellant. 's. B. Kashyap, Advocafe for respondent htos. 1 to 3. Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate for respondent No.5. ORbER rOraD »*<» (30W NowiBber, 2010) I M. Ouddusi. J: 1. The instant appeal, filed by the appeltant Insuranc®Company, arises froro the aw/ard dated 09.04.2007, passedby the learned 9th AcJditional Mcytor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 101/2005 on the ground that the liability has iwongly been fastened on the Insurance Company as the drivw of the vehicle was not having a valjd and effect-ive driving licence on the date of accident. 2. The facts, in brief, are that clairoants/respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed a claim petition under Sect-ion 166 of the AA.otor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensotjon for the deat'h of deceased Jawahar Lal Kenwcrt in the motor accident, whjch took place on 13.05.2005, when the motorcycle of the deceased was dashed by the offending dumper bearing registrd'ion number C612-ZC-0334 on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.4. The |e9al heirs of the deceased have clajmed a compensort-ion of Rs. 22,12,448/- under vorious headsontheground that they were dependent on the deceased, who was the only ecrning member in the fwnjly, and on account of his death they have suffered lo^ of income. ^ 3. Lecu^ned Tribunal, having regard to the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, granted a total compensation of Rs.9,75,000/- along with interest ot the rate of 6% per annum from the dflrt-e of the applicotion. •.^'"^.. [:j '\^^wS^ ^^ /n 4. We have heard learned counsel appearin9 for the appellant and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insuronce Company has submitted that from perusal of the report- called from the RTO,A(way (^ajasthan) it is apparent that the drivjn9 licence was not issued to the driver by the licensing authority and therefore its renewal from the RTO, Ambjkapur has no legal effect-. He furt-her submits thcri- respondent No.4 js permanent resident of bistrid- Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh cuid the d"yin9 license has been issued to him by the ft.T.O., Alwar (Rajasthflin), whjch js not tenable. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel forthe respondents has support-ed the Jmpugned award. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the part-ies and yerwed the records of the tribunal as also the impugned award. 8. In normol way when the orjginal licence is fake, the renewal of the same, though may be genuine but on the fake (icence, that renewal has no legal effect and the original licence, which is a fake cannot be termed ois genuine. But, in thot situation, the Jnsurer must prove that the owner was guilty of the wiJlful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy or the contrad- of insurance. 9. In the matter of Notional Insurance Coinpany Vs. Swarn Singh A others (2004) 3 SCC 297 Hon'ble ApexCourt held as under ; "Where the driver^s Jicence is found to be fake; 92. It may be true as has been contended on behalf of the petitioner thot a fake or forged licence is os good as no licence but the question herein, as noticed hereinbefore, is whether the insurer must prove that the owner wos guihy of the willful breach of the condjtions of the insurance policy or the contract of insurance. In Lehru's case the motter has been considered in some detail. We are in general agreement with the approach of the Bench but we intend to point out thot the observotions made therein must be understood to have been made in the light ofthe requirements of the law m terms whereof the insurer is to estabtish uyillful breach on the pcrt of the insured and not for the purpose of its disentitlement from raising any defence or for the owners to be absolved from any licdbility --<3%^ "I 'A ^t^ s whotsoever. We would be dealing in some detail with this aspect- ofthe matter a little later." 10.In the case in hand, the ticence was renewed and verificotjon of the swne was made from the R.T.O. Ambikapur as genuine, therefore, jt cannot be sajd that there was any willful breach on the pcrt of the ownerof vehjcle in question. The Insurance Company would not have been liabte in case jt wpuld have yt success jn proving thot there was a willful breach on the port- of the owner and in the present case the Insurance Cpmpany has failed to establish the same. 11. In view of the above, the corrt-entions raised pn behalf of the ^tpellant <re liable to be rejected. The appeal deserves to be w»d is djsmissed. No orcler asto^costs. ^, -— Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwai Judge \^