^ INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH ATBILASPURj M.A. rC) No. 4fl 2-/20018 fS.B.) APPELLANT/ fINSURERt RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS 1 & 2 The Oriental Insurance Co. Limited, Brapch Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Raghuvar Singh, aged about : ^" 42 years, S/o. Badae Singh, 2. .y^^ CDRIVER) Hirmatiya i Bai, aged about : W/o. Raghuvar Singh, aged about : 38 years, Both are R/o. Village : Damdam, Caste : Gond, Police Chauki : Kotml, Police Station Pendra, Tahsil : Pendra Road, District : Bilaspur (C.G.) 3.^ Kismat Kumar, aged about : 22 years, Caste : Urao, S/o. 1 Ramcharan Rathor, R/o. Viltage : Chandauri, Police Station : Pasan, Tahsil : Katghora, i District : Korba (C.G.) | :S^r%w^AA' •(J -=^-etl/ T~' fOWNER) 4. The President, Nava Anjor Pawanputrai Samhit Samuh Damdam, (Kotmi), Tahsil : Pendra Road, District : Bilaspur (C.G.) ^ MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 19^8 <r" H!GH OF AT '.A.(Ct OF 2008 Insurer The Co. Ltd. Biiaspur (CG) CIaimanis 1 & 2 Vs Singh and others. FOR \ Z 2011 I 1 Sd/- l G. Minhajuddin Judge 1 \\ .8.201T /^- ~\, ^ 1 J / '•:s^{<3^ ^L^^^y, ,^\ (^ HIGH OF AT M.A.i'C) No.472 OF 2008 ApDeiiant insurer Claimants 1 & 2 Vs The Orienta! Insurance Co. Ltd. Branc-h Biiaspur (CG) Raghuvar Singh and others. Present: Mr. Raj Awasthl, counsel for the appeliant/insurance company, Mr. FS Khare, counsei for respondents No. 1 & 2. ORDER on \ 2- August, ,2011) G, 1. This has been ffled by the appeiianVinsurance company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 the award dated 28th December, 2007 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur, (in short stthe Tribunal") in Cialm Case No. 11/07, iiability upon the appeiiant/insurance company, jointly and severaily aiong with owner, to pay the amount of compensation to the ciaimants. 2. of the are that on 10.3.2007 Sushija was going to Damdam from Viliage : Pankota via Sonkund by Auto Rickshavv registration No. CG/10/T/0347. At that tlme, the driver ofthe s-aid Auto Rickshaw i.e. respondent No.3 by driving the auto in a rash and negiigent manner, turned it turtie at Sonkund, as a result, Sushila numerous injuries and uitimateiy, succumbed to the during the course of treatment. Report of the accident •was iodged at Poiice Station : Pendra Road, vvhereupon Cr.No.48/07 was registered and after comp!etion of Investigation, charge sheet was fiied before the Court of Judjcia! Maglstrate First dass, Pendra Road. 3. At the time of accident, the deeeased was earning Rs.4500/- per month by doing Eabour work in the agricuitura! field. Therefore, the parents of the being her heirs flted a ciaim petltion under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 19.88 (in short "the Act, "v; .;:/ ..../;'"' «^. 1988") before the Tribunai for a total compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- under various 4. The appeElant/jnsurance company was granted permissfon under Sectlon 170 of the Act, 1988. 5. However, Searned Tribunal, after ciose scrutiny of the evidence, orai and documentary, adduced before it by the parties, awarded a tota! compensation of Rs.1,79.500/- in favour ofthe claimants, fastening the tiabj!ity upon the appeiiant/Insurance company, jointiy and severally, with the owner. 6. Heard iearned counsei for the respective parttes, perused the LCR as a!so the jmpugned award. 7. Contention of learned counsel for the appeliant/insurance company Is that at the time of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was havjng a vaijd and effective drivlng licence only for LMV j.e. Non- Transport Vehicie, but at the relevant point of time, he was drivlng a Ijght transport vehlcie, for which an endorsement In terms of ciause (a) ofsub-section (2) ofSection 14 ofthe Act, 1988, was necessary. no such endorsement i's there in the drivlng ticence of the dnver. Therefore, it cannot be that at the time of accident, the driver was a vaEid and effective driving Ijcence. Consequentiy, on account of of condltlons of the policy, the appeilant/jnsurance company not to indemnity the owner and as such, has wrongly with the IIabiiity bytheTribunai. 8. in support of his contention, learned counsel for the appeiiant/insurance company has reljance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of inswance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ko! & in AIR SCW 9. On the contrary, counsei for respondents No.1 & has the impugned award and contended that the company has rightly been fastened wrth the to pay compensation. He has also contended that the Ex.D/2 fiied on behalf of appeliant/insurance company has not proved as per provisions of the Evgence Act, as no -s from RTO has been examlned to prove it. mark-ing of a document as an exhjbit not wlth its proof. Sn the altemate, he has contended that as of the was withln the ambit and puryiew of 3rd party, therefore, the appeliant/insurance company rnay be ordered to pay the entire amount of compensatlon and then recover the from the owner of the offending vehicte, and the respondents/ciaimants should not be made to suffer. 10.in support of his contention,'rejiance has been on the judgments In the of Vs. Co. LfA Vs. a??d 20ff ACJ f3f; order ofthis Court jn the of Vs. Co. LM aad QtiiQrs passed on 1 2010 in and judgment of the Hon'bie Supreme Court in the of Sait and Vs. snd AIR 1971 SC 11. The burden to prove that there has been breaeh of insurance poiicy conditjons is on the appeltant/insurance cornpany. On behaif of the appe!iant/insurance company, it has urged that on the of accident, respondent No.S/driver vvas not havtng a vaild and driving licence, he was a to drive LMV (Non-transport Vehicie), at the time of accldent, he was drivjng a light transport vehicie i.e. Auto Rickshaw, for whlch an endorsement, as per provlso to (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act, 1988 is necessary, whlch was not there. 12. To prov'e the factum of breach ofconditlons of insurance poiicy, the appeliant/insurance company has filed document Ex.D/2, which has by the Licensing Authority, RTO, Biiaspur (CG) to Shri RB Sahu, Advocate, Biiaspur. !n this doc.ument, at SI.No.5, the of vehlcle has shown as "For LMV (Non Transport Vehteje)" and at S!.No.6, the date of "from 22.6.2006 to 21.6.2026". For provlng this document, the appeiSant/insurance company has its Administrative Officer Anll Sao as NAW- 1, but no from RTO, has to prove ^ thls document. As such, by the said document 25.7.2007 as Ex.D/2 through Officer ofth.e Shri Ani! Sao (NAW-1). will not arnount to proving ofthe as no from RTO has for that ?n this connection, judgment of the Court In Salf (supra) be to. As the company has not to prove that the of driver/respondent No.3 not vaiid and for driving a vehicie. 13. Since the under Section 170 of the Act, 1988 of the company was aiiowed by the Tribunai, it has aiso the quantum paft of the award. 14. The Tribuna! has a award of Rs.1,79.500/- wjth @ 9% from the of of the award tili jts jf the company faiis to deposit the amount within a of one month from the of The Is said to have been a tabour, about Rs.150/- per day. As per of father of the (AW-1), age of the at the time of accldent, 18 she w-as shown to be an unmarried girl, her daiiy' income can be as Rs.100/- l.e. Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. Since the was an unrnarried giri and the are her parents, therefore, 50% deduction has to be and iiving of the which comes to Rs.18,000/- per aEinum. As the average age of of the deceased is 40 years, therefore, for computing totai toss of dependency, the multi-plier of 15 has to be applied, as taid down in th^ identified by the Hon'bie Supreme Court in Vs. Cof'poration and another, reported in @ SCC 121. Thus, after appiying muitiplier of 15, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,70,000/-. However, the Tribunal has awarded a total arnount of Rs.1,79,500/- oniy as eompensation. in view ofthis, the question of reducing the quantum of compensation does not arise and the same Is affirmed because there is no cross-objection for enhancement on behalf of the ciaimants. 15. in the resuit, the appeai being devoid of substance is hereby dismissed. 16. No order as to costs. Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge {<L^