. (- c^ l^- IN THE HI6H COURT JUDICATU8E AT BILASPUR Mi^c^ApeeaJ CCLNo. J?^ OFZ007 ] APPEi-LANT ^' g.R ps ^^•\^ ^-:^~^ ^^'s ^" •B??S.- Vs RESPON&ENTS: (Driver' of vehicle) ^ (Owner of vehicle) > Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., , through &ivisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Geetanjali Bhawan, Korba (.C.G.) 1. Uddal ©Rudal Sahani 5/o Rizhan 5ahani, aged about 45 years, Residence of Par'sabhata, Balco Nagar, Kor-ba (C.6.) 2. Deena Singh Thakur S/o Firat Singh Thakur, Residence of Village Pahanda, Korba (C.6.) 3. Kripal Singh S/o, Not e^ known to the Appellant, R/o Darubhatti Road, Korba (c.e.) APPEAL UNDER SECTIOr<ri73 OF THE MOTOR VEHCILES ACT, 1988 A 6AINST THE AWARD/ORbER DATEt) 12.04.2007 PASSED IN CLA EM CASE N0.1T6/2006 BY THE UPPER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (FTC). KORBA (BEN£H PRESIDED OVER BY THEPRESI&IN6 OFFICER SHRI S.K. SONI) Appeal valued at Rs.5,00,0007- & Court Fee affixed Rs.15/- jUf lT_QFCy( C-ORAM: Hon'bleShri !.PA. Quddusi, J. & Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar EViishra, j. M.A.(C1NQ. 83.5 of 2007 sPPELLANT Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus ITS Uddal @ Ruda! Sahani and others. Shri Abhishek Slnha, counset for the appeliant. Shri Ravish Verma, counsel for the respondents No. 2 & 3. OPAL ORDER FQllowini (07/03/2011] orai order of the Court wa< This appeai has been filed by the Orienta! insurance Company cha!lenging the impugned award dated 12/04/2007 of Additional District Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunat (F.T.C.) Korba, (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 116/2006 by which it ha.s imposed the iiability to pay compensation upon the appeilant. 2. The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the claim petitlon, are that on 12/08,/1993 cfaimant Uddal®Rudal Sahani kept his truck in front of Raymond Cernent Factory and was taking rest. At that time truck bearing regisfration No. MPL 5491 being driven rashly and negligently by non- applicant No.1 Deena Singh, ran over the !eg of the ciaimant as a result of which he received grievous injuries. He was in the Siospita! for about1% yea.rs and uttimately his right !eg was amputated. At that time he was aged about 45 years. He used to earn Rs.4,400/- per month. The ciaimant has ciaimed compensation of Rs.9,50,000)'-. ..I „ » The only questlon which is to be determined for the purpose of this was whether there was breach of condition of the insurance poticy as the driver was having a driving licence from 1972 to 1975 which was renewed w.e.f. 30/03/1996 to 20/08/1999 and whether between the date of expiry of the eariier period of licence and date of renewal of drivin^ licence i.e. 1996 it can be said thaf the driver was having a valid and effectlve driving iicence and whether on the of accident the driver was havina valid and effectlve drivins iicence? iefore proceeding further the provisions of Section 15(1) proviso to sub-section (4)0f section 15 are required to be perused which are as under:- "15. Renewal ofdrivlng licences - (1) Any licensins suthority may, on application made to it, renew a drivine Iteence issued under the provisions of thls Act with effect from the date of its expl"/: Provided that in any ca.se where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its exp'ry, the driving iicence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewa!: Provided further that where the application Is for the renewal of a iicence So drive a transport vehicie or where in any other case the applicant has attainsd the age of forty years, the same shall be. accompan'ed by a medical certiflcate in the same form and in fhe same manner as is referred to In sub-section (3) of section 8 and the provisions of sub-sectfon (4) of section 8 shall, so far as may be, apply in relat'on to every such case as they apply in relatio" to a ieamer's licence. (2) An appfteation for the renewa! of a driving Iteence sha!i be made in such forsr! and accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed by the Central Government. ~~~ (3) Where an appf'cation for the renewal of a driwng Itcence Is made previous to, or not more than th'rty days after the date of its expiry, the fee payable for such renewal shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government In this behaff. (4) Where an applteation Tor the renewai of a drivine licencs is made more- than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the fee payable for such renewal shall be such smount as may be prescribed by the Central Govemment. Provided that the fee referred to in sub-section (3) rnay be accepted by the Ircensing authority in respect of an app'ication for ths renewa! of a driving licence made under this sub-section if it is satisfied that the applicant was }revented by good and sufficient cause from applying within the time specif'ed in SLib-section (3): Provia'ed further that if the applicatio" is made more than five years after the driving licence has ceased to be effective, the iicensing authority may refuse to renew the driving licence, unless the applicant undergoes and passes to its satisfaction the test of competence to drive referred to In sub-section (3) of section 9". 5. A bare perusal of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 15 shows that it has been specifically mentjoned therein that in any case where the applicatjon for the rene'jral of a Hcencs is made more than thirt'/ days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shs.i! be renewed with effect from the of its renev/al..; - 6. In the instant case the vaHdity of the drh/ing licence ended on 20/12/1975 and was renewed on 30/03fl996 i.e. after more than 20 years. 7. Second provlso to sub-section (4) of Section 15 ciears the position that when the application is made more than fr/e years after the drivins ilcence has to be effective, the iicensing authority may refuse to .-..v rene'A' the driving licence, unless the appiicant undergoes and passes to its satisfaction the test of competence to drlve referred to in sub-sectlon (3) of section 9. Therefore, it is specific statutory provision that the driving li'cence if applied after expiry of 30 days of the iicence, it's renewa! shall be made w.e.f. the date of renewal meaning thereby that before the date of renesi'al it wi!! not be treated as a continuous authorization to drive the vehicle. In the instant case the renewal was applisd after expiry of 20 years of the expiry of the date of licence, therefore the licence ceased to be effective and thereafter the sa.me became again effective from the date of its rene^/al and not from the date of expiry ofthe origina! driving licence. 9. In the matter of ishwar Chandra and others vs. The OrientaS Insurance Co. Ltd and others reported in 2007 A!R SCW 1889 Hon'bie Supreme C-ourt has held in para 9 as under:- "9. 'From a bare perusa! of the said provision, it would appear that t'ne licence is renewed in terms of the said Act and the rules fr-amed thereunder. The proviso appended to Section 15(1) of the Act in no uncertain tems states that whereas the originai licence granted despite expiry remains . valid for a period of 30 days from the date of expiry, if any application for renewal thereof is filed thereafter, the same would be renewed from the of its renewat. The accidsnt took p!aca on 28.4.1995. As on the said date, the renewal apptication had not been filed, the driver, did not have a valid licence on the date when the vehicle met with the accident." 10. tn the matter of New India Assurance CQ. Ltd. vs. Suresh Chandra Aggarwa! reported in AIR SC 2987 Hon'ble Supreme Court ha.s he!d in para 14 as under:- r -5 1 "14. Having notsd the retevant Statutory provisions, we may now advert to the facts at hand. As noticed above, the stand of the appellant is that the claim preferred by the claimant couid not be processed and had to be repudiated because special condition No. 5 of the insurance policy had been violated inasmuch as the driver of the insured vehicie did not have an effective driving licence at the time of the wcident. Special condition No. 5 reads as follows:- "5. Persons or classes ofpersons entitied to drive. (a) The insured (b) Any other person who is driving on the insured's order or with his permission. Provided that the person driving holds or had heid ind has not. been disquallfied from holding an effective dri'/ing Sicence with all the required endorsements thereon as per the Motor Vehicles Act and the Ru!es made thereunder for the time being in force to drive the category of Motor Vehicle insured hereunder." In view of the above mentioned fac.ts and dreumstance, the appeal succeeds and is allov/ed. The Insurance Company is exonerated from its iiabtlity to pay compensation as there was breach of condition of the insurance policy. However, the amount of compensatlon involved in the award shall be realized from the owner of the vehic!e. If any amount has been pa'd to the cla'mant by the appe'lant, it wil! be at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. ^" —\ • ^ „ sd/~ Sd/- i Prashant Kumar Mishra I.M.Quddusi \ Jud8e Judge ^