IN THE HIGH COURT OFJUDJCATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH MISELLANEOUS APPEAL (C)NO. - r3-^/ OF2010 (MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988) APBELLANTS ~7 ~~ ^' y^y' »••' ^ RESPONDENTS ^:; ^^ ^ ^ ^> :,^>- ^7.: 8. Ramesh Kumar Singh S/o Chaitmm Smgh, ^ i? aged about 36 years, Occupatlon—Driver, Ryo;- Village - Psikariya (Barpali), District - Korbsi'' ' ;.G^) (Non-applicant No. 1) , [Driver ofvehicle Truck bearing registratiort No. M.P. 26/D/1503] ^^ Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, S/d Shri S.L, Agrawal^ aged about 49 years, R/o - Naita,' District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Non-applicaipit No.2) • . ' ' ..' '••' [Registered owner of vehicle Truck bearing registration No. M.P.,,, 26/D/1503] " . VERSUS •• . . ' ..'.•. . . •.•;-.. j- Smt.Suk^in Bai W/o Prabhu @ Chamar Singh, .' aged about 32 years, Indrabhawan S/o Prabhu @ Chamar Singlt, aged about 14 years, ' ^.' Dinesh Kutiiar S/p Prabhu @ Chamar Singh, aged about 12 years, '/ Dhanesh Bai D/o Prabhu aged about 10 years. Vinod Kumar S/o Prabhu aged about 08 years. Dharikunwar D/o Prabhu aged about 06 years. Mankunwar D/o Prabhu @ aged about 03 years. (l to 7 are Glaimants) Chamar Singh, Chamar Singh^ Chamar Singli^ 1 Ghamar Singh,,, [Respondent No. 2 to 7 being minor on behalfoftlii'ough their legal guardian mother Smt. Sukhin Bai Respondehi No. 1] All Gaste - Marar (Patel) and R7o - Village Pakariya (Barpali), DiStrict - Korba (C.G.) The United India Insurance Company Ltd, Through, Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Korba, Dists-ict - Korba (C.G.) ; j [Insurer ofvehicle Truck bearing registration Nb. M.P. 26/D/1503] >^' •'. •.': . .;. ':•: Appeal Value at- Rs, 3,80,000/- •^ .. 8861 >13V •.'.;•:'. ^.••'•.^•'../' ®3p3iHgAHOI.OM anijo £41NOiiDas HaaNn rIva<I«IV4owna^F^ac)I^[aN \\ ^ ^N^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB ; HON'BLE I.M.QUDDU8I 8s HON'BLE G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ. M.AfQ.No.714/2010 Appellant Res-poHdessts Raiaesh Kuinar Siiigh aiid aaotb.er Vs Siiit. Sukhia Bai aiid others Present: Mr, Shivendu Pan.dya, counsel for the appeUaB.ts, Mr, H. B, Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Meera Jaiswal, for respondent uo.8 ORDER(Ora£) (13.09.2011) loKE. Quddusi, J 1< This appeal has been filed by fhe owner and driver of tlie vehicle agahist tlie impugned award dated 21.06.2010 passed by tlie III Additional Motor Accident. Claiins Tribnnal (FTC), Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgai'h ia Claim Case No, 189/2007 fasteniiig Uabillty to pay coinpensation on tliem.. 2. Brief facts of the case as per tlie version of claiinants are that on 09.03.2001 deceased Prabhu @ Chaniar Singh was travelmg m Dumper bearuig Regn,No.M.P.26-D/1503 as labourer, After loading Uie construction niaterial (Gitti], it was goitig towards Champa. On the way at about 6.00 a.m., tiie said vehicle which was beiag driven by Rainesh Kuinar, appeUant no. 1 hereiii, ui a rash aiid negMgent xaaiiner overturaed neai' village Madwa, as a result of which, Chamar Sio.gh sustamed aad succuinbed to tlie grievous iajuries, At the tinie ofaccident, he was aged about 33 yeai's, He was workmg as labourer (Khalasi) ni tlie Truck and was eaniiag Rs,3000/- per niontli. The ^.^^^^ .f ^y^^ 1ls^ \-f^ "^?m-^ clamiaats beiag legal representatives/ dependents of the deceased have filed claim petitiou u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for tlie award of total coinpensation of Rs.10,75,000/- on various heads. 3< We have heard leained coiuisel for tlie parties aad have also gone tlirough ttie records of the Tribunal. 4, Leamed counsel for fhe appeUants subraits tliat the owner has engaged the driver after thorough enquiry and scratiay of fhe drivirig Mcence held by fhe driver, Ou the otlier haad, leaoied counsel for respondent no.S/Insuraace Compaay submits that it is a case of fake Ucense but tiiere is no discussion m. tlie impugued award passed by ttie Tribunal, S. Regarditig fake Ucence, Hon'ble tlie Supreme Court in. case of NaU^nal Insurcsnce Co^ Ltd. Vs, Suwrn Singh and efhers 2004 SCC 297, has obsewed in para 92 as under: <(92. It niay be tnie as has been contended on behalf of the petitioner fliat a fake or forged Ucence is as good as 110 Ucence but fhe questiou hereia, as noticed hereiabefore, is whether tlie iasurer niust prove fhat flie owner was guflty of fhe wiUfiil breach of tlie conditions of tlie itisurance poMcy or fhe contract of iiisurance. In Lehni case tlie niatter has been considered in soiae detail, We are ia general agreeinent with tlie approach of the Bench but we iatend to point out fhat the observations inade thereio. m.ust be uaderstood to have been raade ia fhe Ught of the requirenients of fhe law in terms whereof fhe iasurer is to estabUsh wUful breach on the part of the insured aad not for fhe piupose of its disentiUenient froni raisiag aay defence or for the owuers to be absolved froni aay Uability whatsoever. We would be dealiag in. soine detml with this aspect oftlie niatter a Uttie later. fc'f^ •.•^•:...y^ 60 In view of tlie above discussion, we arc of fhe opiniou fhat fhe niatter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunal, Therefore we aUow tliis appeal m part, set aside flie impugned award dated 21.06.2010 aiid rerait tlie matter back to tiie Tribuual for decision afresh ia the Mght of the observatiou made-hereiaabove. 7. Needless to niention tliat tiie parties shail be allowed to amend fhe pleadio.gs, adduce further evidence, file documents or get fhe docuiiients verified etc., aad tliereafter tlie Tribunal shall make tiie award afresh at fhe earUest, The parties shatl appear before the Tribunal on 20th October, 2001. The records of tfae Tribunal shaU be sent back wifh.out farther delay. 8. In fhe result, fhe appeal is atlowed ia part.. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao