1 W’Ei’cWq . . a; m‘n'czn% grim? asrféra 'éTéT? T' f 5. Ez&‘m%&z'r 3mm 3mg 50 Hm, mic—:1 i nWmvgmi sifra’m, gr mfe. marg 5o ‘éaTs‘vT, $WT/Eétmhw sigm r F ‘ 37/3—Wmm a??? 37 q‘v, Ham‘? 37/3 Ara? 3m, _c a??? gn‘ r 1%6‘11’ g1? 53 13mg e. a’abrfm Erma}? :rrTarséa ma 3y L45 Hm m%mm Fm §§3§ iuiv‘iT \EAF? g E. 3T. $ ‘faffm 3III‘Ta 3irr73‘fa am W3" uh? um mferfqun 1988 A/2f/ m w/u 3- E ” , mifmvig 3m mm‘ma, 3 “C"“faa ambm gaxrr ‘IWWW srWn’E @WBam Maw * f imiw gm'W m'mabr famé-J K 3mg? 1m fun “M ?1~“ an iéTfT WéiT,¢t:'zim, Tamagi‘? ”Fawn; 3'7wr" 7m W §£J¢c¥£c§$M 1.. @T‘T mf um mrmw WT mg 35 “w ‘Jl‘mfaa mf, mm? :‘m‘aTE'HrJ l‘ aim“, mg 17 Hm, éfu'frm :muc, gag? $aTwm amf 3mg m Hm", w’m 2 am 3 amwf‘cw aff’eir trv'fr ET 3L7Ha§r ,E’amr a‘m’f §aT Q? ’ Ekar’mm WE v 35 1mm ‘T Tvirm‘T mm TTT, g3}, £11m w 3'71? Tcf’r—vm \ Y M , 9x w ii //2// x égait EfE-lfrm f?€r $E‘fci”i;tn’a'r ifarmmm Ea 6% gi WT NJ a.? ub/EUOB a mm £fmaufr: i ‘ faa‘ff‘eéa 3 363/2003 3s 10am mqbrivr I .- .- 31Er°m rmw’a" 3%, 000300 ...—..c- g ._n ...... m.......—._..-....-..--..___, 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH,‘ BILASPUR DB: HON’BLE I. M. QUDDUsl 83 HGE’BLE G. MINHAJHDBIN, 'uJ , M. A. No. 61512003 I Apyeara'nce: Mr. Shrikumar Ag1awal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rook Naik, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Singhal, on behalf of Mr. Praveen Dhmandhar, counsel for respondents 1 to 3. ORAL ORDER (10.10.2011) pegs/1. QUDDUSI. J. 1. This appeal has been tiled by the Insumnce Company against the impugned awam dated 31.03.2003 passed by the VHth Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (ETC), Durg, (CG) in passengers sustained injuries and the deceasegi Kedamath died during the course of treatment. At the time of accident f2f a APPELLANT: Nau‘onal Insurance ' I Company M RE$PONDENTS: Vs. the deceased was aged about 4O yeaxs; he was Working as goods agent] broker and was also running Tobacco agency and was earning Rs. 36,000! - per month. The claimants being legal representatives] dependents of the deceased have med claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the award of a total compensation of Rs.8 lakhs on various heads. Non-applicant 110.2 was the owner and non-applicant No.3 was insurer of the oil‘ending vehicle Truck. Learned Claims Tribunal held that the offending Truck which was being driven by respondent no.5 in a rash and negligent manner dashed the Tempo in which deceased was traveling, as a result of which, he died; there was no contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Tempo and the. claimants are entitled to receive a total compensation of Rs.3,53,00()_/— with interest h‘om the non—applicants 1 to 3 jointly and severally. Learned counsel for the appellant especially contends that the driver was not having valid and edective driving licence at the time of accident and the licence produced on record is fake one and secondly he contends there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the tempo. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the Tribunal. The contentions raised in this appeal were raised in M.A.Nq.613/ 2003 (National Insurance Company Ltd“ —v- Smt. Sukhia Bai & others) arising out the same accident which was hled against the impugned award dated 31.03.2003 passed separately by 7th Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg, in Claim Case No.48/2003 and the said appeal was a ‘70 dismissed on the grounds mentioned in paragmphs 5, 6 8n 7 of the Judgment passed on 26th Nov.2010 which are quoted below. “5. The appellant/Insumce Company has produced the onicial of the R.’I‘.O, Dhoulur along with the R.’I‘.O. records, as Witness No. 3 namely Bhagwan Singh, Who hés stated that the lience on 235.1989 was not issued to the driver mm the R.T.O. Dhoulpur but the renewal of the same was made by the R.T.O. Raipur thus the original hcence was fake. In normal way when the original licence is fake, the renewal of the same, though may be genuine but on the fake licence, that renewal has no legal eEect and the original licence, which is a fake cannot be termed as genuine. But the owner of the vehicle appeared in the witness box as witness No.1 for the non—applicant, namely Sanjay Agaiwal, S/o Daya Shankar Agaiwal, who has stated in examination in chief that Ram Pyare was the driver of the vehicle in question. On the date of accident he was having a driving licence which was got verified by the R.’I‘.O. Raipur, who had. veiined the lience as genuine. He also brought the verihcation report, which was exhibited as Ex.D/ 1 and the original of the same was EX.D/ 1—A, which was returned to the witness after getting it verified by the Driver. This witness has also stated that the driver Ram Pyaie was engaged by him only after getting his licence verified. It is not the case that the verihcation made by the owner from the R.’I‘.O. Raipur was fake. The renewal was made by the R.T.O. Raipur nom time to u’ine and on the date of accident the renewal was eh‘ective. 6. In the case of National Insurance Comyany .Vs. Swarn Singh & others (2004) 3 SCC 297 Hon’ble Apex Court held as under : “Where the driver’s licence is found to be fake, 92. It may be true as has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that a fake or forged licence is as good as no licence but the question herein, as noticed r/ s hereinbsfom, is WhCther the insurer must prove that the owner was guilty of the willful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy or the contlact of insurance. In Lehru case the matter has been considered in some detail. We are in general agxeement with the approach of the Bench but we intend to point out that the observations made therein must be understood to have been niade in the light of the requirements of the law in terms whereof the insmer is to establish willful breach on the part of the insuled and not for the purpose of its Vdisentitlement from raising any defence or for the owners to be absolved h‘om any liability whatsoever. We would be dealing in some detail with this aspect of the matter a little later.” 7. In view of the fact that the licence was renewed. and verihcah'on of the same was made from the R.T.O. Raipur as genuine, it cannot be said that there was any willful breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle in question. The Insurance Company would not have been liable in case it would have got success in proving that there was a willful breach on the part of the owner and in the present case the Insurance Company has failed to establish the same and also on the other side the owner of the truck i.e. the insurer has successfully established that he had taken precaution and got veriiicah'on of the driving lincence of the driver, which was renewed by the R.T.O. Raipur, who had verihed the same and there was no willful breach on his part.” 7. In the instant case, we have perused the records and found the similar facts mentioned in M.A.No.613]2003. However, the official of the R'I‘O namely Bhagwan Singh, soil of Giriraj Singh, who was working a clerk in RTO emce, Dhoulpur who appeared in the witness box has inter-alia stated in para 17 of his cross examination that the renewal of the driving licence is made after getting verification of the original licence. >0/ The Licsnsing Authority/R10 Raipur had issued Celtiiicat6 which was exhibitcd as Annexum N,A. 1 I 1 giving the particulars of driving licnece No.9129[R of the Driver Ram Pyare, Son of Tahar Singh in which it has been mentioned that the date of issue was 23.05.1989 and the date of expiry was 25.5.1992 and the said certiflcate was issued vide dispatch No.Q/ 97, by the Licensing Authority, Raipur on 25.04. 1997 on which “mnewal upto 22.5.1995 and thereafter upto 22.05.1998” was mentioned. Therefore, there was bona-hde plea on the part of the owner of the vehicle and there was no occasion for him to have further verification. 8. The next contention in this appeal mised by the learned counsel for the appellant is regarding contributory negligence. Contributory negligence is a part of the quantum nxed by the Tlibunal‘Tor which permission u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act should have been there, but no such permission was obtained. Hon’ble the Apex Court in case of shankarayya V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Am 1998 SC 2968 held that the Insurance Company when impleaded as party by the Tribunal can be permitted to contest the proceedings on merits only if the conditions precedent mentioned in Section 170 are found to be satisiied and for that purpose the Insurance Company V has to obtain order in writing from the Tribunal which should be a reasoned order by the Tribunal and unless that‘procedure is followed the Insurance Company cannot have a wider defence on merits than what is available to it by way of statutory defence. The same view was reiterated in series of other decisions including Rita Devi (Smt) and others Vs. New a V} India Assurance Co. Ltd and another (2000) 5 SCC 113 wherein the Ayex Court held that if the Insuxance Company had not obtained permission mm the Tribunal before filing th appeal, the appeal prefemed by the Insurance Company before the High Court Would not be maintainable in law. Further in the matter /of National Insurance Conwany, Ltd. Vs. Mcolletta Rohtagi and others reported in (2002) 7 SEC 456 it has been observed that “we have already held that unless the conditions precedent specihed in Section 170 of 1988 Act is satished, Insulance Company has no right of appeal to challenge the awaid on merits.” Therefore, the contention raised by the leamed counsel for the appellant that the application of the Insumnce Company for petmission u/s 170 remained undecided and thus it can challenge the award on the question of quantum is also not sustainable. In View of the above, the contenu'ons raised by the learned counsel for the appellant am liable to be rejected. The appeal deselves to be and is dismissed. No order as to cost . x. // Mf/v Sdl- Sdl— an, h; a .l-M.Quddusi« p g Judge G. MINHAJUDmN 532V e i a f