.^V^.^^^^VPC^-^~^Vi-L;^^^..'OV\Ty'^-^'V^/ IN tME HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR WLSC APPEALfC) NO^?OF^t^- OivisionSenct ^ MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNbER SECTION 173. A^OTOR VEHICLES AGT. 1988 ApDellant fon-Applicant No. 3 n.-^ .A/, ^) &CI ResDondents "^ t i-ADblicant No. 1. 2 Claimants \^^ ^^ ^•'•"o..< ^^ u.<- ^'.0>^ ^' ^United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through BrQnchAAanager; Branch Office, near Ram Mandir, Ambikapur, Distt.| Surguja (.CG) Versus Nanku Ram S/o Santu Singh, Caste Gond, agedlabout 38 ; years Qccupation - Driver, R/o Village ^handrpur, P.S. Tahsil ^ Surajpur, bistt. Surguja (GG) Non-ADDlicantno.l Mohd. Rafi, S/o jLate Abdul Hafiz, aged 50 years, Qccupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Village Mahgaon, Office, besides Central Bank, Office, Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur, bistt.Surgyja (CG) Non-ADDlicant no. 2 Reshma, Wd/o Late Mohd. Yunus, aged 24 years, Occupation - bependent. I Fila. b/o, Late Mohd. Yunus, aged about 3 years, Occupation bependent Minqr through Guardian Mothep respondent no. 3 Rahi, S/o S/o Late Mohd. Yunus. aged about li years, Occupation bependent Minor through Guardian Mother respondent no. 3 Khushnuma D/o Late Mohd. yunus, aged about 1 month, Occupation / /-. il 1 ^s^^&' M.L.'iL ^ Dependent AAinor through ©uardian Mother respondent no. 3 Fatmoon, W/o Sahban Khan, aged about 48 years, Gccupation Oependent. Sahban Khan, S/o Murad Ali, aged about 55 years, Occupation Dependent. (All R/o Masjid Para. Nagar Surajpur. P.S. <& Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (CG) Claimants ^lHOHJWUl^^FlC^HliWtl^lBllR^^^^ AI>] <^AN<P RllSPONI^ENTSS ^^^•l(€)^o.faQ^lo^©^®:s,::y- Unitetl India Insura^^ ?^G^ ^a.t,.l;.^^-^l?::/.;l:-:^^:^;^ .^I^US'~.:-4.J^.^,^.-......:,:;.:-.^ Nai^suRam and others |Di:-titlE|]^BiEi)SHRl1^Kl^©AitlB^ ^H^'flBISHKt'It.^«JH^ W^ '?^;l'^^;^^ •iiE^^Ea^^;-^'-^^-^::"^^^^ |^S||jSa|n||i5|S^^^ J^iril|AU^gaj^ ^ OR.A.L C)tl:)ER -(jLS-11-201^)) Per N.K. Agaarwal^ J. 1. awarjd This is Insurer^Qappeat^^^a^ 20^0 passecl ffc^^t^ ^ijbunal^^^^^^^^^^S^ ^t^00%.%^^':..^.:';.'>^;l.l:^^ d^ted 21-1- (^laims ©aseEsto; 2. 3. F'acf&oftheca^embrief^^^ 5.3Q p.iit., Mohd. Yunu^ ^ince Meeeased) w^s comingIrom Bishrampur to^^^^^ S^ .:..;j'^^^--';.^'^-'.7-^..'^ bearmg, re^sti^bn No.^^ C Bartier, avehic^e bea^ being driven b^ ajid bwned^ b^^^ vehicle, as^a resiittof-w^ Th6 claimaiit& bie claim ^tition^^i^ Act, 1988 claiming Rs. 2Q,OQ,OOQ/- as coinpen thedea^ofthedeceased.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^T Before te,arnedWribunal, asper^ the offe^mg vehicle, t^ valid drivt^^^^^l^ Insurahce Company raised a spec^ ll:.lll^i-L..^I drrwr oflAie offend^ effective drivinglicence at^t^ 4. Learned Trib^ made,^^^^^^^^^ 4,25,G)QO/- to ttoe claitnai^ insurerjoin^ an^d^^^^^ ^S.^^^^^^^^^^^ T^ 1 copy of Ucem?e was ^ tlie o^iidmg^i^^ (transpor^veliicle)U j n6t ^oldirig licence^^^^^^^^^^^a^ vehicle. Itis also not in d^ is hea^y goods^ y^ appeUant/ Insuran^ C comperisation rejecting ifs (iefence. | 6. Shra Sanjay S. Agrawal, le.^^ -WTQiild contend that the driver was ppssessihg lieence tp drive light motor^ ^ wh.ereas he wasj driving liea^ goods vel^cde at t^ was not possessir]^ a^aUd was welt within the kfto'vyledge of the ownerof the vehicle arid the owner had willfiUly breached t^ conditions pf fhe policy. Despite above, learned^ Tribunal has^^^fa^ }io^i\ity^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Insurance Company which is perse illegal jand the appe^. deservesto be allowed. . 7. Ori the other hand, Shii^^^^^^^^ appearingfortherespondentNo.2supportG(ttheawarded. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ perusedtheawardimpugnedandrecordofthe^T^ 9. In the light of the fact that the vehicle in question was heavy goods carrying vehicle and Mcence to drive light motor vehicle (trai^ it is crystal clear that the driverw^ A.;gii and effective xlrivi^ this fact was rio^^ Thus the appeUaiit/ Insurailce Company^^te dtscliarged its bu pfthei^sure^i.e^o^ bfSec^oil 1^9(2) ofth^A^ Cofflp^aJT/ cannot M held^^^^^^^^^^^^ l^ c<?ri[ipensatiot^to^^^t by the Tribunal in this^^^^^r law, (leserves to be and i^hereb^ is allowed in part to the exterit pfliaJDUtty ofthe Insur^ 'Compariy'..'1'/.,-1',,^;^ 1Q. However, m ^ew pfpara 83 of^^t^ Suprenie Cc)uart in case of^^^N Ltd. ^- Swaran SingU^ SCC 297, we are of the opimon^^^^^t^ fu-st pay the ambunf<)fcomperisaMoato^^^^t^ then the appellant cari "f recover the amou^ ^'^..:.:^/.'':-^':;:';:;;''':':^.- cbm:pensati<mpaidtot^ driver ofthje offet^ before the Tribun^ ll.Noorderastocosts. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge "V