.^' :t-'""v'. ©•"•;??%?•!, 11 "^^Ss'^^- 'J, H16H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhe Shvam Stiarma Miscellaneous Appeal tCl No.81 of 2018 1. DhanSai Sahu, aged years, Son of Ram Nath Sahu, R/o. Vfllage, Sivni, District Raipur, at present R/o. Mahamaya Para, Arang, District Raipur^ (CG) (Driver) Respondents 2. Vs 1. Dinesh Chandrakar, Son of Sakh Ram Chandrakar, aged 38 yeats,, R/o. Village Lakhoull, P.S. Arang, District Raipur (CG) (Ownei^ , Harish Kumar Sahu, aged 28 years,Son ofChhabi Ram Sahu, R/o. Vflllage Bhansoj, P.S. Arang; District Raipur (CG) 2. Relfance General Insuranoe Co. Ltd., Through Branch Msmager, Shop No.412-413, Ravi Bhawan, Jai Stambh Chowk, Raipur(CG) Present: Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel fbrthe appellants. • ShriS.S. Rajput, counsel for respondent No.2; None ft>r respondent No.1. Miscellaneous Appeat under Section 173 of the Motor Vehictes ACt. , i§88,..:.,............^..,.» ORAL ORDER (Passed on 3"j August, 201 1) • This appeai has been preferred by the driver and the owner/non-appticants 1&2, challenging the award datad 07.10.aM)9 passed by 10?h Additionaf Motor Accidents Claims Tribunat (FTC), Raipur, jn claim Case No.88/^09, whereby, the claimant hSB been ? awarded a'sum of Rs.44,^0/-as comRensation andliabitity of ^ ^ payment of compensation to the claimant has beai fa^ened OB the appellants/non-appllcants 1 & 2, jointly or severaBy. , 2. BrieT facts of the case are that respondent No.l/clairiantDled an application under Section 166 of the Mrtor VehtolesAct, 1988 (heretnafter the Act, 1988') before the Claims Tribtinal^rfor compensation of Rs.3,25,000/-forthe injuries sustalned by him in an accident took place on 5.12.2008 resulting from whicle N6.CG-04, E-1302, driven by appellant No.1 and owned by appellarat No.2 at the relevanttime. The vehtele was insured with respontilsntMe.a; at thetimeoftheaccident, < . 3. Leamed Claims Tribunal awarded compensallon of Rs.44,48p/- jn fayourof claimarrt/reqiondent No.1, fastenlng liability for iMiyment of compensation on the appellants jolntly orseverally 4. The appellants denied the contents of the ciaim petition and stated that the claimant himself fell down on the road due to slipping of his bicycle Eind at the relevant time, the vehicle was insured with respondent No,2. They further stated that appellant No.1 (driver) possessed a vatid and effective driving license and fherefore, llabjlity, if any, for the payment of compensation, Is on re^onctent •No.2 (Insurance Company). The Insurance Cempany fited reply before the Claims TribCinal and took a defenoe that frie tiriver of ttro vehicle did not possess a valid and effeet'ive driving llcense and there was no prpper permit and certiflcate ofthe offending vehicte. 5. Shri P.P. Sahu, leamed counsel appearing for ftie a^sellarts has argued that appellant No.tfdriyer) was possessing a wlid and '^ effective driving llcense at the time ofthe accident, The Tribunal has committed an error in ignorlng the copy of Iteense, which was submltted before the Tribunal and ateo erred in disbelie^ng the evidence of Rajesh Kumar Bhargav, olerk of RTO departmant, who in his evidence had specifically stated that the driving Ucense has been issued on23.01.2007 and was valid upto 23.01.201 Qi Rajesh Kumar Bhargav was examined by respondent No.2 (Idsuranee Company), therefore, his statement is binding on respondert No2, but the Tribunal has ignored the at?ove cireumstance Thefmdlng of the Tribunal is unsustainabie in the eyes of law. 6. Per contra, Shri S.S. Rajput, lesmned counsel aHsearing for respondent No.2,has opposed the arguments advanced by leamed counsel fbrthe appellants and supported the Impugned award: 7. I have heard learned counsel for the partles and perused the tmpugned .award as also the documents availabte on reoord. 8. The appellants had taken specific plea in their written statement before the Claims Tribunal that the appellant Np.1 (driyer) possessed a valld anct effective driving Itcense at the time of accjdent and the vehicle, bearing registration No. CG-04, E-1302, was insured with respondent No.2. In seizure memo (Ex-P/4) it has been mentioned that liceose No.D/1636/R was seized from driver Dhan Sai Sahu, S/o. Ramnath Sahu and the validity (rf the Iteanse wasupto 23.1.2010, •\,' ./•/ 9. The Claims Tribunal, in para 13 of the impugned award, has held that at the time of accident, the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license. 10. Considering the facts and circumstaTpes of ttie case, 1 am of the view that appellant No.1 had posses^d a vaUd and effedttve drivlng license or not requires reconsideration at the end pf the Claims Tribunal. 11. Theretore, the appealis allowed, the impuyied award Is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Claims Tribanal bad< for decislon afresh. The Glaims Tribunal shall decide the valid'rtv of the drivlng license afresh, Needless to mention that the parties stell be allowed to adduce fyrther evidence, amend their pleadings, fite docu{nents pr get the documents verified ete. and thereafter decision shall be taken bythe ClaimsTribunal afresh. No prderastpeosts. 3 ! . Sd/- 1 Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge _>/ :A— ../-^?