r 1 IN THE mOH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURCC.G.) M.A. No.u.^^.. OF 2006 ('APPEALVALUEDATRS.6.94..760/-')1--' BivlgiaB Bl APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEmCLES ACT. 1988. APPELANT (NON- APPLICANT No.3) ^y /^' .•''-•.A?i.V--!' -^^w' ^:'. ^.y ^'w : The New India Assurance Company Limited, Near Jhankar Talkies,Jagdalpur, Distt.BastarfC.G.),through its-Divisional anager, Divisional-Office,IInd floor, S'hriram Trades center,opposite/Rajiv Plaza, Bus Stand Road,Bilaspur, Distt.- BilaspurfC.G.). VERSUS :1. Akhilesh Benjamin S/0 Shri G.W. Benjamin, aged -39 years, R/0-Maharani Ward, Naydmundapara, Jagadalpur, Distt.- Bastar (C.G.) gTON-APPUCANT ^ ^2. ^atai John @ Mathew Jan •^0-1) ( Driver) S/0- M.K. Baby Jan, R/0- Frag^pur Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar. RESPONDENTS .^APPLICANT ) (NON-APPLICANT N0.2) 3 Manish Jain, S/0- Rajkumar Jain, R/0-T'Tr^^<iiA—U'nitict(^ Jain, '•v\&a.y Sc^ifcr'-Scw^i T^^JLApc^T 'S\S^T- gn^lSv CGJ<q^<»-< HIGH CCTJRT OFCHHAmSQARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'bteShri IAI.Chittdusi.J.& Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. MA.No. 833 ofMOB APPELLANT The Newtndia AssuraiweCompanx Limlted. Versus RESPONDENTS Akhilesh Benjamin and ottiers. Appearance: Shri DashrerthGupta.counsslforthsappaUanfc Shri Akhllesh Mfehra, counsel fcr respondent No. 1. ORALC«DER (10WSQ011) ; L Following oral order of I. Quddusi. J. the Court wgs |i^s«d by 1. No one is therefore, we proce^ again^ these iwp(m<N^ jBNiwte. -W®have heard leamed counsel Tor the appellantflnsurancs.CotnRany.and tBamed counsel for respondent No. 1/claimant. 2. Thfe appeat hasbeen ffl^agau^^theJmRiun^an^^^t^^ 21/02Q(X% passed by IV Addlttonal Motor AcsKtert Clauns Trtbunal (F.T.C.), Jagdalpur in claim case NO. ^20Q5. Ttie-chaltenge Is Imdted to the liability fixed by the claims Tribunal upon apRdlanKlresMranw Companyto pay compensafion. 3. The brief facts <rf the case, as narrated in the clahn peBtion.are thal on 03/070004 claimant Akhilesh Bens^n. at.»houfe8:'15,teBhe(.|uglhtivras coming towards city Iftrough ^hghat in hjs mcrta^ VK^or bearing regisfaation No. C,G.17-B/3ffi1, then yehicte tearing n^)fetoaUon No. C.G.17/H/0350 b®ingdrjv»e»trashly and negBgentty l^ non.amBcant No.1 dashed the mcrtoBcycta and cau^d U»e acehlettf du% to whteh Akhitesh B^aminreceivedg S^sirvurie^andMNcanft^waw»rtly Bi5^. ""^ '-.-v-^ 'y g Q- disabled. At the time of acctetent he was^gedahout %^eaB, Hswas Govemmerrt Seivant and used to eam Rs5,51CIQfe per month. The 4. Leamed counsel for the.appeltant hassybmttli»1.1lKtftheAh»r<rf the offendingvehteteM^nrtha^^Ua(Kt^wth».flll»An,li^nceon the date of accident In Ihi&.iiegaKl th^ h^im,{»dk,iced..onftB^lM' Kumar Sharma, Assistant Gra<WlAJ^^feft.<^ ^8^^ Cffice. Jagdalpuc as.Non-awiBcartf No.3's witnws Ne.1. He had ^atedl that he has brought the.ljcence.regi^r in w *»Mrthew.Jlobn Sft) MX Johnwas issued Lightatotor VaNde IteiMWsMdffidng.prtiSiteMdlicte w 27/03Q003 which is vaUd till 26»)3Q023i.e. fwZftyffius, l;»Mtte'•^^^S^ granted licencei fw.Hwvy Gooda Vehieto on 14/07/2004 whtehfflmatoed effecUve till 13<07/2X)7 i.e. for three yeare. Heji^ als®^a^ to drive HeavyPa^enflerliNiicteonl&ITOffO^whictivffla^wm^^ on 13/07Q007. Copy ofthedrMngN<»ra»also!?h<»isthatiw,Ui8fu^ time he ws issued ticence to drive He»/yGi»<xte,Vyitele»'on14ffl7QQ04 8' which remained effective forthree years. 5. The vehtele whieh was being driven by the driver <rf the offendlng vehicte Tata LPT1109 which is Goods Carrying Commeroial Vehicte (Open), therefore it cannot be said that ttie driver of <he vehtete wss having valid and effectjve driving Iteence on the date of acddent whteh is a3Kf7QQ04. In fact he was issued the drlving licence to drive heavygoods vehtete for the flrst time on 14/07/2004 i.e. after 1 1 (teys from the date of accident: The twenty years ncence for Private Light Motor Vehicte do^ not authorize to drive commereial vehtele or goods canyb^ vehicle which is a transport vehste. '5- 6. In view of tte above, we are of ftei opinton that ttw jl(»uram» Companyfappeltantjiyas surassssftil in f»owng that tlw (jriwr of Ihe offeruliiw v^ictenamelyMath®«t<J<tew^(^fc»^4i^andeffi9<^^ driving Rcence on the date crf accident. 7. tn ttie matter of New India Assurance C<!iropiUW,,UBWted ^. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and anothw, teportKl,hi (%TOl.AJSGC 2S3, the HoBhte Supieims Court has heyjtousin<;gra»aptoj0^unctee- "^ection 10^AhBJ!^flB»<i<te^?K^»8aMtt»BtSl(Nng„ licenc®. Different dasses-ef vahicle have been daf^d in different provisions of Motsr VeNcSis.j^ TM- "IraiasRC^ vehicl8"isdsfin^mS<<tion2(47)offtttAetto^nBatfapul^^ZT ^rvtoe vehicle, a goo<te cantege, an edutattonal InsBtutton buscraprivateseiMcftj(8hicteM^tsiMt»tt^he(ainb6(^ the provisions ofsub-serfon (4) (rfSecSon 4t.We hwe also noticed the nofiecafion i^auiN M ^ CmiW <»o»emmert^^^m this behalf. The said naBBcafon ctaariy po^uldtostifrtathfa*- wheeted vehtete for transport of passaigas or goods comes within the puivtew<rf Class §ofttWs'fabteappiWNtellliia^o, The licence granted in favour trfthe sakl SalimAmadWiat goes to show thatthe same w^s granted fi^ ayehiteliB.iothtrftan the transport vshicls. It was vatkl ftwn 13-5-2004 to 12-5-Zt24. Section 14(2)(a) provldes that a drtvir^ Hceiwe tesued or renewed underthe; Act shall, in case ofxlteBnceMihma a transport vehicte wilt be affiactive fw a psriod of UirM years whereas in the case of any other vehicte it can be issuejdor renewed for a period of20yeare (rom the dats ofissuance or renewal. The fact ttet the Ucence was grantsd for a period of 20 years, thus, clearty shows that Salim Amadbhai, drhw of Uie veWcte, was not granted a valid drivii^ Itesnce ta' drivi^g a transport vehicle." 8. In the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angiul Kol & others ceported in (20(^ 11 SCC ^ the Hpnlils SMprenieCourt has heldthus: "ABhough the ctefinitton of Itoht m<rt0fe A»hfete*.t^nB» within te umbrage botti ''hansportvehfeto''or"omflibtB'>, indisputably. a disUnctkxi belween an eflfecCve drhring licence granted for tranqsort vshicto and passangw.mator vehtete existe. The dteUnctlon betwwn a 't^ttt metor vehicte' and a 'transport vehfcle' is evktent A fransport vehfcto may be a light mdorvehlcto butfor the fMirpose of drhring the same, a disBnct licence Is required to be obtained. The distim^on brtween a "transport vehicte" and a "p^senger vehlcte" can atso be nottoed frwn -3^ -^- SecBon 14 (rfttie Act Section 14 (?) pro^des for ((iwaUw of a period of ftree yeare in oase of an dfectwe drivhtg licence to drive a 'transport vehitite', witweas in case of any other licenee, it may remain effeettve for a poriotlo( twenty yeare. Thus, it Is evident that a transport vehfeste may he a lightffl(^^hjcto butiMlheRU»po»XANnO Vhe same, a disCnct licence is required te be obtained......." 9. In view of the above, fte aweal deserv^ to be, and Is aWowWllo part. The lialMlify fixed in the impugned award -upon the appellanfflnsurance Company re set-asjtte. Hpwwei, we, hiWBe not considered the quaotum fixed, twthe claims JAynat and tt»ameunt of compensation which is liabte to be rewvared Jrigtn U^ owner of tfw vehlcte. The imiM.ignedjaward i$ m<xlifi®dto the jitewe exNit. ffjuiy amount has been d^(^it^ anrt Is ^l in <fejj%^.tt ,san»e N^.^^^to refunded to the apRdte^rmuiance Cwipaoy, Jliww^t^^^^^ amount has been tBsbursed fa> ttie dalmants, ftj^M <*fi0 fw the appellantflnsurance Company to recover ttie same from the owner oS the vehfcle. __- Sd/-_ . ^.M.Quddusi 3ud6e Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge