r) ‘> IN THE HIGH CWRT GF JUDIQA‘I'URE AT BIIRSPUR (C.Go) Misc. APPEAL N0. K? 3 /2002 APPEAL UNDER SECTIQN 173 OF THE MOT$R VEHICLES x" r” X I. REsmNDEwr m.3: mjanam cherwa s/o 'xio‘t knawn mam-APELIcANT No.2 / f R/o village'chalgan pL‘s. Chaigau Tahsil Wadraf Nagar. Distt. Surguja ’(c.a.) % ACT 1988. ‘ - w/ (APPEAL VALUED AT Rs. 30,088.00) x”! ye/Eew Indla Assurance APPELLANTcgT NO 3'X:§ Assurance Company , r. Ltd. ¢£f1ce Rajendra Nagar, Chow}: -’- ..-£° “f’ .- /' ~Bilaspur (C.G.) Througs its Senier Branch Manager. Vs ‘ /"" ' mspmmm'r m 1 .Xgyhoepdeo 3ingh s/e Raghubar Singh, APPLICANT Constable No 111 aged 36 years at present posted at P S. RaJPur mstt 3urguja (C.G ) ‘ RESP9NBENT N9.‘2 Wail ya” reml‘al ’Agrawal s/o Mohan Lal ¢ Agfawal R/e village éhalgali P.S. - l,‘ and Post éhalgali,‘ TahsilWadraf :7- 1 w xv , . Nagar‘ D1$tt. Surguja V(C.G.') E HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR \ SINGLE BENCH: HON’BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAH J. M.A. No. 85 of 2002 he New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Office Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) Through its Senior Branch Manager. APPELLANT ‘ NON APPLICANT NO.3 VERSUS 1. ESPONDENT EP-LICANT Dharam Sai s/o Asan Ram aged about 45 years, Profession — Teacher Primary School, Narsingh Pur, P.S. & Tahsii — Rajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) ESPONDENT ON-APPLICANT O.1 ESPONDENT NON-APPLICANT No.2 Premlal Agrawal s/o Mohan Lal Agrawal, R/o Viliage Chaigali, P.S. and Post Chalgali, Tahsil Wadraff Nagar Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Ram Janam Cherwa s/o not known, R/o village Chalgali P.S. Chalgali, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) M.A. No. 86 of 2002 PPELLANT NON APPLICANT NO.3 .‘TheMNew lndia Assurance Co. Ltd. Office'Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur Through its Senior Branch '(C.G.) Manager. VERSUS Vans Narayan Tiwari s/o Shri Kailash Tiwari, aged, aged about 35 years, profession Advocate R/o village Sincharo, P.S. & Tahsil — Rajpur, Dist. Surguja (C.G.) Premlal Agrawal s/o Mohan Lal Agrawal, R/o Village Chalgali, P.S. and Post Chalgali, Tahsil Wadraff Nagar Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Ram Janam Chen/va s/o not known, R/o village Chalgali P.S. Chalgali, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) M.A. No. 87 of 2002 The New lndia Assurance CO. Ltd. Office Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) Through its Seior Branch Manager. VUS ERS RESPONDENT APPLICANT ESPONDENT ON-APPLICANT O.1 RESPONDENT NON-APPLICANT NO.2 APPELLANT NON APPLICAN NO.3 , T R A R N N R A R N N T n RESPONDENT VAPPLICANT Roopdeo Singh s/o Raghubar Singh, Constable No.111, aged 36 years, at present posted at P.S. 'Rajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Premlal Agrawal s/o Mohan Lal Agrawal, R/o Village Chalgali, P.S. and Post Chalgali, Tahsil Wadraff Nagar Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 3. Ram Janam Cherwa s/o not known, R/o village Chalgali P.S. Chalgali, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR V o VEHICLES ACT, 1988 RESPONDENT NON-APPLICANT NO.1 RESPONDENT NON-APPLICAN No.2 Appearance (in the above three appeals): Shri A.K.Athaley, sounsel for the appellant. Shri M.B. Gupta, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Shaktiraj Sinha, counsel for respondent No.2 R (Passed on, 27.09201 0) ORDE By this common order, M.A.No.85l2002, M.A.No.86/2002 and M.A. No.87/2002 are being disposed of as the same are arising out of order da’t’é'd ‘ 24.16.2601“ passed ‘b“y‘ th’e"'1‘s‘ "Aadit‘ib'riéi ’ Motor Acéi’dents‘ Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in respective Claim Cases No.61 of 2001, 56/2001 and 62/2001 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.31,678/- as compensation to claimant — Dharm Sai, Rs.1,27,715/— as compensation to claimant — Vans Narayan Tiwari and Rs.30,088/— to claimant — Roopdeo Singh, in an injury case. 2. Brief facts, in a nutshell, are that on fateful day of 07.02.1999 at, 8.00 A.M. due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3 — Ram Janam ChenNa, Mini Bus bearing No. M.P. 27 B 3590 (for short ‘offending vehicle’) turned turtle, due to which, the claimants who were travelling in that offending'vehiel‘e‘,‘ 'receiliéd'serious'injuries. ' 3. Seeking compensation on various heads, claim petitions have been filed separately by the above claimants. As against compensation of Rs.1 ,25,000/- sought by claimant — Dharm Sai for injuries sustained in the motor accident on 07.02.1999, the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.31,678/— as compensation to claimant — Dharm Sai. Similarly, as T gainst compensatio of Rs.3,45,000/— sought by lmant Vs arayn Tiwari or nuries sustaid i motor accient on 07.02.1999, te ais Trbuna warded su f s.1 ,27,715/— as coesation to him. me maer, as gains th pensation of s. ,00,00/ sought peo Sin o t injuri recei b him n the motr cciet, a m of Rs.30,- awarded to him. The Trinl frer awarded nter t 12% pe annum from the ate of filing of clm etition till actual mnt. The Tribunal furter direcd the respondens i. insurance copany and on of the offending to pay amounts of compensation joihy nd sev a the n cai an Na f ij ne n d h Clm il a a m o R mpn ln the sa nn at e com R1 0- loy Rood gh fr he es ved y i o adn su 088/ was bua uth iest a r d ai p paye h te t e. m wer tl‘ a erally. Aggrived by the sai orr, e appellant/ insurac company has . file nstant ‘pals. ri A.thaley, l ouns or the aellant / nsurance cpan argud th r as not olin efftive advali iig lene to driv t enin l hrefore, t in company is nt li y satn amn . On the ther hn hri haktir'aj Sinh learned counsel for the owner submitted that after due verification of drivmg licence held by the driver the owner permitted respondent No 3 driver Ram Janam Cherwa to drive the offending vehicle while supporting the impugned award. 7. i have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record of the Claims Tribunal and impugned order 8 I Respondent No 2 Premlal owner of the offending vehicle while denying the averments made in the claim petition has stated in written statement that respondent No.2 was the driver and was driving the offending vehicle on the date of accident. Suddenly, due to technical failure, the-said offending vehicle was uncontrolled and thereafter turned turtle; The 'driver was holding a valid and effective licee and e ffending vehicle was insured with the insurance company. 9. Respondent No.3 — Ram Janam ChenNa while denying the averments made in claim petition stated that on the date of accident he as driving the vehicle at a snail's pace and cautiously. But due to 5 Sh K.A earned cel f pp i omy e at diver w hdg ec nd drvn icc e he offdg vehice, te he nsurace o able to pa compenio outs. 6 o ad S S a \i vua iii 4 e d de th ne d the i ape nc th o w 4% chnic failure acciden occurred and not due to his rhand negligent riving. 10. The appellant / insurance coany while denying all the facts erre in claim petitions nd wrien statements of espondent No. 2 & 3 a a n ic w sud ith e n ate of ac but th rive of fening vhicle was not holding alid and effective drivi licence therefor, the insurance comny is not abl o y an opeation to e hd partis ‘ aving thus her'd learn counsels nd considred th mission and evidence, it lear ht the offendin vehicle was owned y emlal Agrawa and w being driven by Ram Janm hen/va nd in tht offenng vehicle Vans Narayan Tiwari, Dhm Sai and Roopdeo ingh re travelling on the date aent and due to accidet the imant received injuries. regars the qustion as to rash and nelige g o t vehcle div N w s se in his vience that t n vehicle wa being rivn y the river i a rash and neglient er nd upon his reques the driver did ay an attenti n way there s one bridge and sp and due to ra nd negligt iving the offending vehicle b its driver, he said sh a en dr of y t fending vehi suddenly tund turtl, due to which sstained ll bo f S h Cas d 2 s hi w y S pli h loed FR an e acen ent tg t9 cl e cere ors, FR., o ra p cts V w o Dharm Sai. mp avd a tt rs dmitted tht offendig vehle as inre w insuranc company o the d cident e dr ofd e v ng , e pa lie t pa y cmns th tir e. 11‘. H a ed a e e sub is c ta g b Pr l as a C a a di ar S we ccid n clas As d e gnt drivin f he i by its rer, Vans arayan Tiari ha depod ed he offendig s de b d n g mann a t, not p y on. O wa loe of cle re e he u coar ne racture. imilarly, Darm Sai and Roopdeo Singh in their claim es No. 61/2002 an 62/002 and in their evidence have deposed the ame tng as as deposed b Vans Narayan Tiwari. Roopdeo ingh is oce constable, wo dg the .l.. d receivd injuries in the same cidt. Docums relain media treatment, mdical report of connd doct .l. copy f criminal case, X-y plates etc. were roduced by the above laiman — ans Narayan Tiari, Ropdeo Singh and . remlal grawa, owner of the offending hicle, dosed his idenc that i t owne o e offending vehicle .. 7 B 3590 and m nam ChenNa wa the driver. has also produced documents ig'to driving licence Ex.D., insurce policy x.D.2, fitnss erifica Ex.D.3, registrati pr Ex.D.4 and vali permit of the fening vehice. Ti‘s witness as ot prest at the i accidet ut tea! t as d 12 P Al ve ep in eve he s he r f th MP 2 Ra Ja s He relatn 1 an E e ctte on paes d ofd l h w n en tme of n b the manner in which the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver has nowhere been stated. There is no deposition of driver of offending vehicie on record so that the evidence of owner could be beiieved. In these circumstances, it can safely be inferred from the‘evidence of claimants that on the date of accident the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, all the three claimants’ sustained injuries. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly recorded its finding on this point. 13. The owner of offending vehicle produced licence of the driver, whi‘c‘h‘is on record in claim case No.56/200’l as Ex.D.1 wherein the number of driving licence is 13740 issued in favour of Ram Janam ChenNa was mentioned. Driving licence number MP. 27194/AB was issued on 16.04.1998 wherein it has been shown as “Motor Cycle + L.M.V. only and at page No.6, it has been written that licence is valid from 16.04.1998 to 02.04.2017. lt is clear from the licence that the same was issued on 16.04.1998 and’was-effective‘till02.04.2017 i;e. for a period of 20 years to drive Light Motor Vehicles. lt is clearly mentioned therein that licence was issued to drive the vehicles excepting the transport vehicles meaning thereby under this licence held by the- driver on the date of accident a transport vehicle cannot be driven. Premlal also admitted that the said offending vehicle is passengetvvehicle and Ram Janam was the driver of the vehicle. In his evidence paragraph 5, Premlal also deposed that he got the driving licence verified from the concerned R.T.O. and information hereof was mentioned in Ex.D.1 i.e. driving licence. He has also deposed that he got said driving licence verified through one Vijay Sinha, who in turn informed Premlal that his vehicle can be driven under this licence. But on perusal of' record, l find no evidence was led on behalf of Vijay Sinha so that this Court could know who was he and in what capacity he had verified the licence. Therefore, the evidence of Premlal does not inspire‘ confidence and trustworthy on this point. it is also clear that he possessed the knowiedge relating to making of licence, permit etc. He has produced Ex.D.1 i.e. driving licence wherein it was mentioned that excepting transport vehicle, his vehicle can be driven under such licence i.e. Ex.D.1. Therefore, it is clear that despite he knew the above fact, he permitted Janak Ram ChenNa, who Was holding L.M.V., to drive the said offending vehicle. Thus, it can be safely inferred from his evidence that t Premal himself is responsible for accident occurred on 07.02.1999. Once Premlal himself admitted in his evidence the above fact, there is no need to prove the above fact. 14. The appellant / insurance led evidence before the Tribunal by producing Tushar Ghosh, who is his evidence, has deposed that after due verification he found the licence which was holding by the driver of the offending vehicle was for L.M.V. ' Thus, this witness also proved that licence in question was L.M.V. and under this licence, the above said vehicle cannot be driven. In’this regard, the Apex Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol, 2009 ACJ'1411 held in paragraph 1O as under: “10. The distinction between a ‘light motor vehicle’ and a ‘transport vehicle’ is therefore, evident. A transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained. The distinction between a ‘transport vehicle” and a ‘passenger vehicle’ can also be noticed from section 14 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of section 14 provides for duration of a period of 3 years in case of an effective licence to drive a ‘transport vehicle‘ whereas in case of any other licence, it may remain effective for a period of 20 years." lt Is also from the evndence and Ex D1 coupled wrth the above observation by the Apex Court that there is no endorsement of Lrcensrng Authority to drive the heavy motor vehicle or transport vehrcle lt rs also clear that licence havmg been granted for a period of twenty years a presumption, therefore, arises that rt was meant for the purpose of a vehicle other than a transport vehicle. 15. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Angad Kol (supra), the Apex Court has also discussed about its'judgment rendered in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Others 2008 (1) T A C 812 (SC) and found that driver of should always be held wrth effective and valid dnvrng licence according to type of vehrcle and then only rt can be said that driver Is holding valid and effective licence. 16. After relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court and for the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the driver - Ram Janam Chen/va l was having only riving icence for motor cyie + L.M.V. and the same was granted to him w.e.f. 16.04.1998 to 02.04.2017. There is no endorsement in his licence to ply transport vehicle and it is only for non-transport vehicle. At the time of accident, the said driver was driving the vehicle i.e. Minibus. which is a transport vehicle. According to Section '3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motorcab hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. Thus, it is clear that the driver in this case was holding licence of L.M.V. + motor cycle which disentitles him to drive transport vehicle.‘ On the date ofaccident, the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle without having valid and effective driving licence in breach of insurance policy, therefore, the insurance company, appellant herein, is not liable to pay compensation, resulting into, the insurance company is hereby exonerated. 17. In view of the facts and‘circumstances mentioned above, since the . insurance company is exonerated from its liability to pay compensation, the compensations of awarded by the Tribunal in Claim Cases No. 61/2001, 56/2001 and 62/2001, which is just and proper compensations, therefore, shall be paid by the owner of the offending vehicle — Premlal, respondent No.2 along with interest as fixed by the Tribunal. If the insurance company has already paid any amount of compensation, then the insurance company can recover the same from the owner. Accordingly, the impugned award in so far as it relates to pay compensations awarded by the Tribunal by the insurance company is set aside. The a s prtly llwedt No order as to costs. era Sd/ l R.L. Jhanvvrrarrr,7‘_/ Judge d l c ppeal i a ao