IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR [003 Division BQncK ^ APPELLANT •OWNER ^..-^'v ^^^ .<•" RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS M.A.(C.) No..(r.:^:...../2010 Devendra Jaiswal S/o Shri Ramnarayan Jaiswal, aged about 28 years, R/oVillage -Bhainswar, P.S. 8s Tahsil - Sonhat, District Korea (C.G.) (NON APPLICANT N0.1 BEFORE LBARNED M.A.C.T.) VERSUS. 1). Indrawati W/o Late Jairam Singh aged about 53 years, ^ 2\ 3)f 4\ 5)'^ Non-Applicant No.2 /DRIVER 61. ^ Non-applicantNo.3 7) Insurer ^ Aasha Devi W/o Late Jairam Singh Aged about 45 years, Kumari Sushma *D/o Late Jairam Singh, aged about 20 years, Omprakash S/o Late Jairam Singh aged about 18 years, Satendra S/o 'Late Jairam Singh, aged about 15 years, (Respondent No.5 is a minor through represented by his natural guardian (Mother) namely Aasha Devi W/o Late Jairam' M^/< i'^- ^"*-, rh^-so^Ur. lgn "i>^- K^eo ^ ' ^'" ""' Lavkesh Chandra S/o Mahendra Kumar Panika, Aged about 21 years, R/o Villdge Podi, P.S. - Sonhat, District Korea (C.G.) Branch Manager,The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, First Floor, Rama ^^.^:? Trade Center, Near Rajiv Plaza, Near New Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.) MEMO OF MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL (C.1 UNDER SECTION 173~"6F_MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988, AGAINST THE AWARD -»<c.^^ /ORDER DATED 07/07/2010 PASSED IN MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM CASE N0:16/2009 BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS • TMBUNAL KOREA (BAIKUNTHPUR.)DISTRICT KOREA (C.G.) a &^e%^.. tss'ae s" 5$ j?^a SSS &ls B A^L'T- ! m.A.lc] No.1003/2010 Oevendra Jaisw/al "s A'\r. Anil 6uiati, Advocate tor the a&Deilant. mr, nKniissn (Wisnra, ftavocaTe Tor' resoonaenT iMO. hr: ?•«="•;."!-5- •^!-a'S^ " j^!*? («--^S^/^ "k "!EI- hl i-*l •£- 4-1^^-! S-.-tl"! •'•'J"—->-i*'S ..F^ 3'is-^iiiirf } t«?i t &—t juf^i i^i &? ; s i-SUt'u/ 3ji'u?ij^j:t ^.f'^i ^t—'i^i fAr. R.N. "ustv. Advocate Tor the r'eSDondent No./. I TS3 *J'« AA ___a_ ^^»-d ^ •h A^m_._VyadysL_!i. 'i. t-haltenae in the instant aDpeal, tiled by tlie appellant- passed by ths learned AAotor Accident (,'iaims (C6) Ftor short the Ctaims Tribunai'1 in ClaJm ie c!aim petition tiled by the tastenino. liabilitv on the appellant herein to pay the comfensatlon. 3. Facts of ths case. in nutshell. are that the resDondent No.l To B-claimants !, Konya. (BaiKur 16/2009 Q.l^ow navs Tiled a e 'e'.^tf.^. 1988 (I comDensation of Rs.18.50.000/- for the death of deceased Jairam Sinah who was husband A father af the ciaimants resDectively. i" a motor accident wh'ch took'Dlace on uy.uy.ffjuy at about lii.Ul D. n the •aDDllcant No.Z tunes ani m Vi'laae Bhainsawar. ,309. which was driven a result he sustamed clo'med compensation on the around that tliev were ds in Tamily, and ctue to his death. thsv ho.ye suttered toss ot mcome. jWSW*? L»i.L ^ ,'?,:,. ~ "^ /'^l,..:''^ i: ^. fl ...'•-.^ 1 S ;! '%K£^--li 1 Y -y!/ 4. Learned Clajms Tribunal. atter tokinq note of the 'evidence avail' record, altowed the claim application and saddled the responsib oaying comDensation on the aDDellant herein on the around that the otthe coni Learned counsel for the aooeilant would arau wronajy "eached to the conclusion that the Dolicy condition. u'hereas on the date of Dl nos auestlon was havinq VQlid & sttective drivino. that the amount aw?arded by the'C.iaims i nbuna! is too excessive. On the other hand. tearned counse! tor resDond.ent Nos. 1 to 5 has -c, 7. We hcve heard iearned counse! for the porties and Derused the recor-ds 1S Q.iSQ th€ y. in ths i'natter of Oriental 1 eported in (2009) ll SCC 356 the 'Hon'ble Supreme Court has hel "AJthouqh the definition of 'nqht motor vehicie' brinqs within jts unhr-aqe ;k^4-Irt ^4-" .•*";"•:;—*!•*•-"?••.•-••l-*^-*-!,.""''' •*^> "Auu-.uSin..] i.tfi ;sn^;i..i^.. i^.^!;|«.|tr .a; .41''4'^f"Sf'l^tW: ^A'4"'^A "'- Uw i is ; i'U^iS'j/wi'i ¥^'iji^i^> UF •u/Ufiii^u..? liiUiSpu i Uiysy ^ '.A ^j3iiri^iiivri fc'i£iiw?&^'t' an ett'ective dnvinq licence qranTed for TronsporT vehicle and passenger —^^;—^-«. T'E.^ ^EI-.JL:——:-— ^-_s..———^ — ii:—L.^..—^—^^, >,^^;^1.^-? ^s—l muiuE' VSTIsi/iK c;AiS?)&. iHS S.dSTInC.TiOn DyiW&Kri u ii^tii t'ii^iUi' V&iH^iK ui?iiJ U 'transport vehicle' is evident. A transport vehicie may be a liqht mvtor afS>?ai<rfi^ 't.'u j jvi~ !iS& M^if "B^'i/.TS' '^ i ^S'iviiiM eti^ Sii.iiii®', in i-jtjiiaiiErfi ai ^•'S.is I'^S' i5i required'to be obtamed. The distinction between a"transport vehicle" and "".^^^-.."-.rt..". ...^l-:.fS.<." —!-,-ie"^ krt. .-L-»l';^-—4•S".-,^" ^.~.^4-;-i- 1A ---^ •4.L-- A=^ ui MUS5i&iiiijSii' T^iiiii^ls- ^^Aii uiiSi^/ ~i~tsS' iEVij<^<.>^i IS'VESJ t^?i&<i/j ivii *'ST w{ ifi'Si j°-ti^i. Section 14 (2) provides for duration ot a period ot t,hree years in case ot OiH S{TSSTiVS CiiiVEny iiCSHCS TO Or!i¥& ^ Tr^lSpQi' VS'1i£'f@ ^ ^iTjSpeeiS 211 CQ5S i H US ^ sT l^ SViC!Si; i THGT 3 TFQFiSpCFT VSHICIS nlSy DS 3 il^iiT aT^TGP VSHidS SUT se of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be ;y a«? i u.3; a ^> w ...,,>. .ln t!ie cass oT indii 2008 (l) SCC 696 it u/as l "3U. No'*'. it 's the COFHp lui r1 STlT wnlCll tTISi ^TEt Uf} QCCIuSHT ^'u3 u Tl"GH3pOr!T VStllSi®. IT was submitted that the insured vehicie was a "qood carrlaqe" and was thus a "transport vehicle". The vehicle it'as drivsn b-y Ram Narain, who s2 tr authorized to drive liqht motor vehicle '^-.^^,'1 .f-is^ >S. I ?->.—.-=•4-l^--e ..4—:.— t-^-^J .—.nll.—^s^.—sv •4-.n -?4^;i-..-.-; 4-E-^n—^—.—<- .T.nn^j-l^s i» vsnicis. ii.^inc.s TH@ Otiysr HGQ iio iicsfiCS T£? urivs TionspOiE vsnicis EH absence of necessary endorsement in his Ijcence to that eff-sct. he COUiQ FiGT HQVS £3wiTrS!i i GTSX /U./ "*irs0 nniSH TiiCiT VSHidS mST nTiTH Sn ^' BSSiWB. accidenT, the J.nsurance company could noT be made liable To say -,-.^—^^^^^:^-"' ^'u?'liyt?f[Sui iUrl. 10.In the matter of New ' Inditt Assurance Co. Itd. Vs. Sahemansho Faltir and ansther r'eDorted in 2008 f3) T-A.C. 20 (SQ ths Hon'bie Suwerp.e Court reDeilina the submission ot tearned counsel tor the "r the dnvina licence issued for auto ricKshaK/ was' adoDted Tor carryino. passenqers or qoocfs i 'er was not hoidinq an ettective dnvnq licence to dr m 11, Indisoutabty, in the instant case the oftendinq vehicie was the bus commercial vehicle. and the h'cence issued to the driver of offendinq vehi ina therebv the licence is issued for was to" a Ger!o? Durpose of a "ehicie other than a transport vehicle as had it been grantec; tenure thei (2) (a) of 198E fact that the licence has been aranted for a neriod of 20 years, it can be safely said That the Claims Tribunal has not committed any rnistake <n exoneratma The Insurance C.omoar1 / .a is accoriain th IS Ch arouD ot 61-65 years case the Ctaims >er. ribuncil is on •e lier ot / is has aDDlied The multiDlier o be soid tne aniount award by led OT aunnTi 13. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, we are of the opinion that the instant aDDeal has no torce. the same tails and is hereby dismissed. 1 he aTiount, which has been deDosited bv the ap&ellant j.e. Rs,25,000/-, shall be ••iriiiisted townr-^s the amount invoived 'n the jmpuaned aw?ard. _ ^__. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ii:;.i J< n...-^ n'-wi'sssysvi.^ase^y,^,