APPELLANT (insurer) w RESPONDENTS: kg Claimunfs f 1~_\ f wVtD Division Bench IN THE HIGH COURT JUDIcATURE AT BILAsPuR Misc‘ Appeal No. gfz“ OF 2006 yThe ‘ Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Raigarh through its' Branch Manager, Rhigar‘h Sunday Marké’r, ‘ (C.G.). 1 Snln’r. Shyama Bai, gf 'La’re Khirurum, aged about 3O years. 2 Kumari Indira daughter fat Late Khiruram aged about 14 year‘s. r 3..Telsai, son widow of Lafe Khir‘uram, aged about 12 years. 4 Dmesh Prasad son of La’re Khlruram aged about 8 years. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are miners through their natural guardian/mother respondent No.1—Smt. Shyama Bai, widow of Late Rikhuram. Smt. Dholi Bai, widow of Late Buddhan Sai, aged about 48 years. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are residents of Vii‘iage Kote, P.S. Sitapur, District (E Raigarh. Owner of vehicle @ J 6. Vikas Agarwal, Propriefor 9 of Sham‘i ' Sfeel Indusfr‘ies, Sudar Bazar, Raigarh. @ /7. B.C. Kaushen 60nd, son of .Shri Fakira Gond, aged gbouf‘l32 year's, residem‘ of .éailaaala, Kotwali, Raigarh. APPEAL U/s ‘1/73 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLes AcT \v. AGAINsT THE AWARD/ORDER DATED 31.3.2006 \;' Na PASSED IN CLAIM CAsE No.15/2005 By THE 1ST ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMs TRIBUNAL . , ,v, AMBIKAPuR. M Driver of vehicle HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR DB: Hon’ble l. M. QUDDUSI & Hon’ble G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ M. A g No. 85212006, APPELLANTS: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shyama Bai and others “z mac- APPEAL UNDER sEc'non 17s OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 19ss Appearance: Mr. Abhishek Sinha & Mr. Ghan Shyam Patsl, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for respondents 1 to 5. Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, counsel for respondents 6 8a 7. ORAL ORDER (03.08.2011) per LM. QUDDUSI, J, 1. This appeal has been med by the Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 31.03.2006 passed by the Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G) in Claim Case No.15/2005 so far as it relates to fastening liability to pay compensation on the appellant. 2 Bn'ef facts of the case as per the version of the claimants are that on 15.12.2004 at about 10.00 a.m., deceased Kheeru reached to the Bus Stand for going to Bagicha. When he was standing there at a corner, a vehicle bearing Regn.No.C.G.13- A/ 2330 which was being driven by non-applicant No.2 in a rash and negligent manner dashed him, as a result ofwhich he sustained grievous injuries and he was brought to Govt. Hospital, Sitapur where he died. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 32 years and was earning Rs.8000/ - per month. \ The claimants being dependents/legal .\ \ R\ . (x repmsentau'ves have med c1a1'm yetition‘ u/s 166 of the Motor Vehiclcs Act for the awaxd of total compensation of Rs.8,50,000/ — on various heads. The leanled Claims Tn'bunal has held that on 15.12.2004 at about 10.00 a.m., Centm Car bearing Regn.No.C.G. 13—A/ 2330 which was being driven by non-applicant no.2 in a rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased Kheeru, as a lesult of which, he died and there was no bleach of conditions of the insurance policy. It has awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,31,000/- which the c1a1'mants are enn'tled to receive from the non-applicants jointly and severally. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the records. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the ground for the hrst time before this Court that though the driver of the offending vehicle was issued a driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle for 20 years in View of section 14(2) of the Motor ‘ Vehicles Act but thereafter, as he was authorized to drive the hanspoxt vehicle for a period of 3 years, the period of license granted to drive a private vehicle Would be reduced automatically at par with the driving licence to drive the uansport vehicle. We have not found any such provision under the Motor Vehicles Act or the MOtor Vehicles Rules. Rather in Section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act the period of licence has been mentioned diEerently that is 3 years for transport vehicle and 20 years for private vehicle. Therefore, it cannot be said that since the driver was holding driving license to drive the transport vehicle also, the period of private vehicle shall be deemed to have been removed automatically. Hence, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the quantum nxed‘ by the Tribunal is on higher side: From perusal of the record, it is evident that the appellant Insurance Company has not obtained the permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 170 read as under:- g0 “Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under : “170. Impleading insurer in certain cases.—Where in the course of any inquiry, the Claims Tn'bnna] is satisned that — (a) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or (b) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the insurer who may be liable in respect of such claim, shall be impleaded as a party to the proceeding and the insurer so impleadedi, shall thereupon have, without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 149, the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against Whom the claim has been made.” 7. In the matter of Naaonal Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others reported in 2003 (3) TAC. 293 (SC) the Hon’ble Apex Court has held thus:- “31. We have already held that unless the conditions precedent speciiied in Section 170 of 1988 Act is satisned, Insurance Company has no right of appeal to challenge the award on In View of the above, this appeal has no force and it is hereby dismissed. No order as cost(s). Sd/- Sdl— l l.M.Quddusi Judge G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao