IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR (C.6.) M.A. (C) No. lo£?> of _2Q1i 1 APPELLANT/ Non-applicant no. 2 VERSUS M/s B.K. Engineering Corporation, through Authorized Officer, R/o 45/47 Industrial Estate Bhilai, bistrict-Durg (C.6.) RESPONbENTS/ Clai'mant ,...,..h >nHo.:--;,. „•••" »o?i£>' •^t: ^^ ->'\\ Non-applicants :1. Chandramohan Rathore S/o Late Ramashankar Rathore, aged about 28 years, R/o Shantipara Ektanagar, Camp-I, Bhilai, Tahsit & bistrict-Durg (C.6.) 2. Smt. Shilpi Rastogi W/o Shri Mayank Rastogi, aged about 44 years, R/o Nehrunagar, East Bhilai, bistrict-Durg (C.6.) 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, in front of Project Automobiles, 6.E. Road, Bhilai, District-Durg (C.6.) MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTTON 17U3F THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 <"'- I—? ?y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT RESPONDENTS M.A.CNo.1063 of 2011 M/s B.K. Engineering Corporation VERSUS Chandramohan Rathore & others (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT) r (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. Jt.) Present : Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate for the appellant ORAL ORDER (Passedon 25.11.2011) 1. t-1eard on admission. 2. This is owners' appeal against the award passed by the Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 117/11 vide award dated 30.08.2011. 3. As against compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- claimed by the respondent No.l/claimant by filing application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act') for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 06.02.2008, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs. 45,324/- along witfrwterest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application til! its actual payment holding appellant & respondent No. 2 liable for its payment, exonerating the respondent No. 3/The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant. 4. r 6. 7. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, heid : the accident had occurred due to rash and negiigent driving by driver of Car bearing registration No. CG-07-1349; claimant sustained multiple injuries in the said accident; respondent No. 3/ The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. is not liable for payment of compensation to the claimant as the driver was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident; assessed and awarded aforesaid amount of compensation in favour of clalmant. Shri Prateek Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit: the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant and also in not directing the insurance company to first pay the award amount to the claimant and then to recover it from the appellant/owner. He further submits that award amount is shockingly on higher side which deserves to be suitably reduced. 1 have heard the counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the order impugned including records of the Tribunal. In view of the fact that doctor has not been examined by the ctaimant to prove the number and nature of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident and resultant loss, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards future loss of income. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 22,824/- towards medical expenses on the basis of bills & vouchers produced against the claim of Rs. 60,000/- put forth by fhe respondent/claimant; Rs. 8,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs. 3,000/- towards special diet; Rs. 5500/- towards lifn- dlscomfort and loss of amenities of life, Rs. 6000/- towards loss of income during treatment, and thus has awarded a total sum of Rs. 45.324/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident, which, in my opinion, cannot be said to be excessive. 8. So far as other grounds taken by Shri Sharma that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant is concerned, admittedly the period of license was expired five years prior to the date of accident, meaning thereby, the driver was not having vaiid and effective driving license at the time of accident. 9. The Supreme Court in case of Ishwar Chandra & others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & others1 has held : Section 15 (1) proviso of the Act in no uncertain terms states that whereas the original license 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 date of its renewal. The license held by the driver had expired on 27.08.1994. The accident took place on 28.04.1995. As on the said date the renewal application had not been filed the driver did not have a vattd license on the date when the vehicle met with the accident. Hence the insurer is not liable to indemnify the appellants, the owners ofthe vehicle. ,07 (10) SCC 650 Sahu 4 10. Considering the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred case and aiso considering the fact that appeal is not filed by the claimant, but is filed by the owner of the vehicle, in my considered opinion, there is no substance in the appeal warranting interference of this court. 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge .^'