c^ vj IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISCARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C)No.- /2009 |R"! APPELLANT ^ ss- '•;«-••• ^^:- ^•••V<U^ <y w«iW y iW"^' c~d. .-.«..•.•? ^ ^^ "^'t -.< A [^.'vf- ^'"'"^&.l^^^T'" THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. PVT. LTD., BRANCH MAIN ROAD, JAGDALPUR, DISTRICT - BASTER C.G. Vrs. RESPONDENTS:- 1. SMT. KAMALA SONI AGE 55 YRS. W/0 CHANDRIKA SONI 2. SMT.SANTOSHISONI,AGE20YRS.W/0 LATE JAIKUMAR SONI ALL RESIDENT OF PREMNAGAR, KONDAGAON, DISTRICT - BASTER C.G. RESPONDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS :- 3. DAYAL MANIKPURI S/0 SUNDER MANIKPURI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BEDRI, DISTRICT - BASTER C.G. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT- 1923 ^i- IGHC J, Bi :SPOi ET! Hon'bie Shri Prashanf Kumar Mishra, J. M.A.rciNo. 881 of 2009 The Oriental insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Smt. Kamala Soni and others. APPEAL UNDER SECTiON 30 OF THE WORKMENS COMPENSATIO! ACT.1823 Appearance: Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsei for ths appeilant. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Shri Santosh Bharat, counsel for respondent No.3. 17/01/2011 Foitowing orai order of the Court was . passed This appeal has been fi!ed by the Oriental Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 12/12,'2008 of the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Jagdalpur under the Workmen CompsnsaSion Act, 1923. The appeai invoives the following substantiai question of law: 'Whether the driver of the goods vehicle having a drivin^ license to drive the Light Motor Vehicle private can be he!d to be a valid driving iicense holder, if not, whether the insurance Company is tiable to pay compensation even in breach ofconditions of Insurance Policy?" (2) Since parties were noticed and leamed counse! for the respondents are present and Lower Court Record has also been received, this appeal is finaily dlsposed of. (3) The brief facts of the case are that deceased Jai Kumar was working as a Driver. On 28/10/2004 deceased Jai Kumar was driving Mahindra Max Jeep bearing registration No. C.G.17 H/0451 belonging to non-applicant / .t*E:B:"ESS ^^ siS§Si^ 8 ^ s ^s-^/ No.1 and was going from Kondagaon to Nagpur. On the way at National Highway No. 6 the said vehicle met with an accident and Jai Kumar received grievous injury and he died on the spot. The deceased was aged about 22 years and h®was earning Rs.4000/- per month and Rs.1000/- as aliowance. The daimants have claimed compensation ofRs.4.42,740/-. (4) We have perused the Lower Court record and found that Assistant Grade-11 namely Shri Ramkaran Ratre office of the Reglona! Transport Officer, Jagdalpur appeared in the witness box along with relevant documents and stated that the driver of the vehicle namely Jai Kumar Soni S/o Chandra Prasad Soni was having a driving license to drive the private llght motor vehicle. He has specifically stated that he was authorized to drive the private vehicie only he was not authorized to drive a commerdal vehicle. The driving license issued to the driver Jai Kumar Soni is also avaitable on record which is Ex. D-1 according to which the driving license was issued on 5/01/2004 and is valid up to 4/01/2024 i.e, for a period of 20 yes.rs from the date of issue bearing driving license No. 7-8785/C.G.17 by the Licensing Authority, Bastar Region, Jagdalpur (C.G.), therefore the Insurance Company has successfully proved that the driver of the vehicle nameiy Jai Kumar Soni was having only a driving license to drive private Light Motor Vehicles, he was not authorized to drive a goods vehicle or fransport vehicle may be Light Motor Vehicte or as paid employee. Admittedly the vehicle in question i.e. Mahindra Pick-up Van is a light motor soods vehicie. (5). Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel Tor the appellant has submitted that since the vehicle was goods carrying vehicle, therefore the !icense authorizing the person to drive light motor vehicte without there being any endorsement to drive transport vehicle is invalid. Under sub Section (2) of Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 authorization of a license to drive transport vehicle is three years, whereas in case of any other license it remains effective for a period of 20 years, therefore the driver Jai Kumar Soni was granted a license for a period of 20 years to drive the private vehicle which cannot be authorized to drive the transport vehide as the license for that would have been for a period of three years only and therefore the driver was not having valid and effective driving llcense on the ^'•'^aa, '<<. ^"«% '^ ^*, '^'.^B,^" ,^y '^xy -5 <-, daie of accident and therefore the Insurance Company is not liabte to pay compensation. (6) in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal reported in 2008 (1) SCC 6% it was held in paragraphs 30, 37 and 38 thus:- "30. Now, it is the case of the Insurance Company that the vehicle of the complainant which met with an accident was a "at, Shnsured vehicle was a "good camage" and was thus a "transport vehlcle". The vehicle was driven by Ram Narain, who was authorized to drive light motor vehicle and not a transport vehicle. Since the driver had no llcence to drive transport vehicle in absence of necessary endorsement in his licence to that effect, he could not have driven Tata 709 and when that vehicle met with an accident, the insurance Company couid not be made liable to pay compensation. 37. The argument of the Insurance Company is that at the time of accident, Ram Narain had no valid and effective licence to dri'/e Tata 709. Indisputably, Ram Narain was having a licence to drive light motor vehicle. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, refemng to various provisions of the Act submitted that if a person is having licence to drive light motor vehicle, he cannot drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do (Section 3). Clauses (14), (21), (28) and (47) of Section 2 make it clear that if a vehic!e is "light motor vehicle", but fafls under the category of transport vehicle, the driving licence has to be dufy endorsed under Section 3 of the Act. If it is not done, a person ho!ding driving licence to ply light motor vehtele cannot ply transport vehide. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, Ram Narain was having iicence to drive light motor vehicle. The icence was not endorsed as required and hertce, he could not have driven Tata 709 in absence of requisite endorsement and ttie Insurance Company could not be held , //' .4-'*''''-:';'* '~h,. -^ ® 38. We find considerable force in the submission of the tearned counsel for the Insurance Company. We a!so find that the DisSrict Forum considered the question in its proper perspective and held that the vehide driven by Ram Narain was covered by the category of fransport vehicte under Clause (47) of Section 2 of the Act. Section 3, therefore, required the driver to have an endorsement which would entitle him to ply such vehicle. tt is not even the case of the complainant thatthere was such endorsement and Ram Narain was allowed to ply transport vehicle. On the contrary, the case of the complainant was that it was Mohd. Juffikar who was driving the vehicle. To us, therefore, the District Forum was right in holdlng that Ram Narain could not have driven the vehicle In question." (7) In the case of Orlentaf Inswance Company Llmlted vs. Angad Koiandothers reported in 2009 AIR SCW 2747 and {2009} 11 SCC35S it was heid in paragraphs 15,16 and 18:- "15. Section 9 provides for "grant of drivjng licence". Section 10 prescribes the form and contents of licences to drive which is to the following effect: "10. Form and contents of licences to drive.-(1) Every learner's iicence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under Section 18, shalt be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) A leamer's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehlcle of one or more of the following classes, namely: (a5-(c) - (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (i) road roller; (j) motorvehicle of a specified description." The distinction between a "light motor vehicle" and a "transport vehicle" is, therefore, evident. A transport vehicle <. 5- may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the sarne, a distinct iicence is required to be obtained. 16. The distinction befaveen a "transport vehicle" and "passenger vehlcle" can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 provides for duration of a period of three years in case of an effective iicence to irive a "Sransport vehic!e" whereas in case of any other iicence, it may remain effective for a period of 20 years. 18. The insurance Company examined Shri R.K. Hila, an officer of the Regionai Transport Authority. The contents of his deposition, as has been noticed by the learned Tribunal in 7 of the award, is as under: "The onus of Issue 2 is on Opposlte Party 3. But they couid not establish their allegation that the vehtele was driven contrary to the conditions of the insurance contract. Witness 1 or' the opposite party Shri R.K. He'a of ths Regional Transport Authorifr^ has that Opposite Paily 1 'nad licence to driver iight motor vehicle for the period 30-7- 2003 to 29-7-2023 and the vehicte involved is a !ight goods vehicie. It is contended that the holder of the licence had to obtain -an endorsement to drive goods vehicles but it has not been established whether the vehicle involved in the accia'ent is a goods vehicle and whether the holder of the licence was entltled to drive a goods carriage vehicle. It has also not been established that the vehicle involved v/as goods carriage vehicle. Opposite Party 3 could not estabi'sh ihat the vehicie was driven contrary to the terms anc conditions of the insurance. As -a result Opposite Party has not bee" to establish that ths driver of the vehicle which caused the accident did not have an effect've and vaiid licence. Hence Issue 2 is decided against Respondent (8) in the matter of ! Faki -263, the Hon'ble Supreme Court h; Company Limited Vs. reported in (2008) 8 SCC he'd thus In pansaraoh 10 as under:-/ ^ "Section 10 of the Act provides for classes of the driving licence. Different classes of vehicle have been definsd in provisions of luiotor Vehic'es Act. The "transport vehicjs" is definad in Section 2(47) of the Act to mean a pubiic semce vehicie, a aoods carriage, an educationa! institution &us ora private service vehic.ie. We have noticed hereinbefore the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 41. We have aiso the notffication issued by the Centra! Government In this behalf. The said notification cleariy postulates that a three- wheeled vehlcle for transport of passengers or goods comes within the purview of Class 5 of the Table appended thereto. The licence granted in favour of the said Salim Amadbhai goes to show that the was granted for a vehicle other than the transport vehicla. It 'was valld from 13-5-2004 to 12-5-2024. Section 14(2)(a) provides Shat a driving ilcence issued or renewed under the Act shail, in case of a lincence to drive transport vehicie wi!! be effective for a period of three years In the case of any other vehicto it can be issued or renewed for a period of 20 years from tha dat®of issuance or renev/al. The fact that the llcence was granted for a period of 20 years, thus. clearly shows that Saiim Amadbhai, driver of the vehicle, was not granted a vaiid driving iicence for driving a vehicle." (9) !n view of the above discussions, we are of the firm opinion that the appetlanS Insurance Company is not ilable to pay compensation. (10) Therefore, we a!low thls appeal and hold that the appellant is not liabls to pay compensation and that part of the impugned award is set- aside. However, the remaining part of the award is not interfered with in the instant appeal. (11} We further direct that the liability to pay the compensation involved in the award is of the owner of the ve'nicle. The substantia! question of law is accordingly ansv/ered. (12) If ihe amount has a!ready been paid as mentioned by the tearned counsel by the the same may be recovered from the owner following the case of Ltd. vs. Ssngh and omers reported in (3) SCC 297. therefore it is directed that at the first instance the insurance company is directed to pay the compensation to the claimants and recover the sarne from the owner. !n the result this appeai is ailowea. , - ^ SA'- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prsshant Kumar Mishra Judge