^.^•^f-ws^ .,nt..i&-.. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASMJR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR. J. M.A. (^rNo. 137 of 2003 cO^ APPELl.ANTS : KashiSharmaand another. RESPONDENTS Versus Premsay and another ORDER Pronouncement of order : 2,$:09.2010 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ^iS^. ^y-TtJ ri^' HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR. J. M.A.(^)No.137of2003 1. Kashi Sharma S/oNageshwar Sharma, r/o APPELLANTS {Non-appjicants No. 2& 3 RESPONDENT village Pandavpara, P.S. Patna, Tehsil Baikunthpur, Dist. Koria, C.G. 2. Jawahar Lal Sharma, s/o Kashi Sharma, r/o WestChirmiri Colliery, Distt. Koriya C.G. VERSUS 1. Premsay S/o Charku, caste-Gond, aged —'about'22-years,r/o village Khond, P.S. Patna, Tehsil Baikunthpur, Dist. Koria, C.G. present address Chadpa, P.S. Bhaiyathan, Tahsil Surajpur, Dist. Surguja C.G. (CLAIMANT) 2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Near Ram Mandir, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, C.G. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1730F THE IVIOTOR VEHICLES ACT Appearance: Shri Shaktiraj Sinha, counse] forthe appellants. Smt. Meena Shastri, counselforrespondentNo.1 ShriG.S.Patel, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (Passed on^' .09.2010) This appeal is directed against the impugned award dated 30.20.2002 by the 6th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Surajpur passed in claim case No.75/2Q02 whereby the learned Claims Tribunal awarded asum of Rs.45,250/- as total compensation to the claimant - Premsai, whosustained injury in motor accident. 2. As againsf'the compensation ofRs. 10,25,0007- claimed by the claimant—Premsay by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for injuries sustained in the motor accident on 07.10.2000, the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.45,250/- as total compensation to the claimant Premsay with interestat 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment. The Tribunal further directed respondentsNo.2 & 3, appellants herein, to pay the entire compensation while exonerating the insurance company. It is this order; [EiitsflmtlB^ajfejA'SA.til the appellants (respondents No. 2 & 3 before the Tribunal) are before this court. 3. Shr Shaktiraj Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that on the date of accident he was holding valid and effective licence which was exhibited as N.A.2-1 before the Tribunal but the learned Claims Tribunaljgnoring this fact, has erred in exonerating the insurance company on the ground that appellant No.1 was not holding driving liGence and fastened the liability to pay compensation on them. It was further argued that learned Claims Tribunal ought to have held that on account of jumping from running Tractor, the claimant sustained injuries and not due to rash and negligent driving of Scooter by its driver. He further argued that compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on higher side. On these premises, he urged that the appellants may be exonerated in paying the compensation. 4. On theother hand, Smt. Meena Shahstri and Shri G.S. Patel, learned counsel for the respondents argued in support of the impugned judgment. This apart, learned counsel for respondent No.2 /insurance company argued that owner and driver ofthe Tractor should also be made party respondents. It was also put forth that driver of scooterwas not holding effective and V£ilid''di'ivirtg'lieenee 6n the date 6f aecident. The learned Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the appellants and the impugned award does not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the partiesat length and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal including impugned award with utmost circumspection. 6. In order to appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, 1 shall first deal with the evidence of Kashi SharmaN.A.W.1, appellant No.1 herein. It is clearfrom his evidence that Kashi Sharma is the father ofjawah.a^.laj .Sti.armg,, gppgllant No,2 hereiin. It has come in his evidenee that on the date ofaccident, the Scooter bearing registration No. M.P. 27 A 2083, which was being driven, was registered in the name of appellant No,2. He further deposed that on the date of accident when he was going on the said Scooter and ahead of his Scooter, a Tractorwas being driven swiftly. As soon as he reached the spot suddenly Premsai jumped from the running Tractor and upon jumping from Tractor, Premsai •Sl fell down then he stopped his Scooter whereas Premsai A.W.1 has specifically deposed in paragraphl that accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of Scooter driver when he was gbing to drink water. Premsai A.W. 1 has also deposed the number of offending Scooter which caused the accident. The evidence of Premsai A.W. is corroborated by the evidence of Lallu A.W.2 and document Ex. P.12, which is a summary note sheet of Court of C.J.M. and was produced by Kashi Sharma, wherein he admitted his guilt that he drove the Scooter in rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased Premsai and paid the fine amount of Rs.1400/-. Thus, it is clear from the admission of guilt by Kashi Sfiarma before C.J.M. andtheevidenceofPremsaiA.W.1 & Lallu A.W.2 that due to rash and negligent driving of Kashiram, the accident took place. The contention of the appellants that due to jumping from Tractor, Premsai sustained injuries and not due to his rash and negligent driving pf Scooter has, therefore, no force. 7. Now coming to the point that at the time of accident appellant No.1 was holding valid and effective driving licence, Kashi Sharma deposed in his cross-examination that he did not bring original licence and got his licence prepared in the year 2001 at Baikunthpur through an Advocate namelyMahesh Shuklaafter taking Rs.1000/- from him. He further deposed tHatwhen his seBdteTw'a'ss'eized then Advocate Mahesh Shukla got his driving licence and then got his Scooter from the concerned Court. Itwas also put forth in his evidence that driving licence was got prepared prior to two months of accident by his Advocate and was not examined by R.T.O. whether or not he knowsthe driving. It has also come in his cross- examination that prior to grant driving licence R.T.O. conducts test whether the person is competent to drive or not and after satisfying themselves then only driving licence will be given, Driving licence, which was produced by appellant No.1, is Ex.P.N.A.2-1 and the original thereof is also on record. A perusal of driving licence makes its clear that it was issued from Gumla R.T.O. and is validfrom 16.05.2001 till 15.05.2018 i.e. for a period of 17 years. If the aboye evidence and that of driving licence Ex.P.N.A.2-1 produced by Kashi Sharma is taken into consideration, then it can be easily presumed that appellant No.1 KashiSharma produced a fake driving licence, which issaid tobe obtained through Advocate, as on the one hand he deposed that he obtained driving licence from Baikynthpur through his Advocate and on the other hand he produced Irt 'ii' -^rr- 3spnc-,.^ ^u^f; -ffS^ •sisoo 0} SBjspjooN •pessiujsip Aqgjaq si pue sq 0} siqeil si IUSLU ys piOAap Buiaq 'JSUMO SLitAq pe|j^'|B9d9e sq} 'A|iusnbssuoo "01. •8ousjs^ie)u! ou jo^s|]BO snyi pue pjooej uo eouepiAe siqipsjo pue euiqouiio eqi uo BuiA|3j |eunqui ei|( Aq pessed ueeq seq pjemB peuBnduj! aqi •Aiiiujyui jo AluBinBejji leusietu LUOJJ jayns }ou ssop PJBMB peuBndLui sqi 'suosesj BuioBsjo^ sq} joj •g •3[qB(d90oeun os|e si iue||9dde sift y3uo\\UQ}uo3 siqt 'sjo^sjsqi 'ezuBuoq jou jsBesuj jsqtjeu si me]A pejepisuoo sqi^o LUB | qoiqM 'iuepiooe J0}ouj ui AjnTui pauieisns oi4M 'iesiuajd — lUBLuieio eL|( 0} uojiesuedLUOo |ep} se -/OSZ'Sfr'sy luns B p9pjeMe'Luej!L|se»p6u!AupiU9B!|68U^Rue,L|sej-ot9nppajjnoooiUsp!33e aq} ieqi Buipioq jeye pue t! ejo^aq p9| eouspiAS ^o uoi^eioejdde jeye seq [eunqui SUJIBIQ psujBe] QV^ 'uoiiesuediuoo jo tunouiB spjBBej sy '8 'uoiiesusdLuoo Aed oiAt!|!qe]| s}i 11104 Auediuoo eouejnsui sL|}pa}Bj9uox3 AiiqBu SBL| pue I.'ON tue|[adde uo uoiiesuediuoo Aed o) Aiiiiqisuodsej sq} pauetse^ A|}q6u SBLJ |eunqui psujeai sqi leqi MQIA eqi ^o Lue | 'siqBiiaj lousi luiod siqi UO'SSSU}IM siqi p aouep!Aa sqi 'snLjj. 'eousoii BuiAup SMiosye pue pi|eA e Buipioq tou SBM eq (uapiooe s}Bp sq^ uo pue suo S^BI B s\ eujjeqg fi-|se»Aq psonpojd aouaoi| BuiMJp }eqi psjje^u] Sq AIISBS ueo 11 USL|} 'j9qta6o} pejepisuoo sq 0} SJB spej. sssLfi u •ssejppe ui ..(Jeqig) B|Luno,, se uiajsq} psuoi}usLU SBM )i '}! 1SUIB6B SB }nq ..(pueLj^jBqr) e|Lun£),, se sou90i| sq} ui psuoiiueuj sq pinoqs 11 ueqi 'o'ry eiiunQ LUOJ^ penssi SBM souaaii sq} ji ieqi ps)ou sq 01 OS|B si l| •OOOZ'l.l.'LO uo Buieq oiui SLUOO se^ pueq^jeqr 10 siet9 pue Q-[B}S pueq>|jBL)r jepun SSLUOO B]ujnQ z'ofi tuepuodssj joj ]ssunoo 01 Buipjoooy 'O'l'a e|LunQ LUOJJ psnssi SBM yoiqM 'sousoii GuiAup qons •U