cf- -. ^i IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR MISC APPEAL rclNO. [^^'^- pp 2008 APPELLANTS: (Non-applicant No.l & 3) ^rs ^^H ^ r^^ \^-" ....^s^ ^"^^'\^"" ^ ?A-^'s^fe RESPONDENTS: (ADDlicant/Claimant) vs l.Ramdheen Sahu, (wrongly written as Malik Ramdheen Sahu), son of Maniram Sahu, aged about 62 years, resident of Village Te'ka, Tehsil Rajim, bistrict Raipur (CG). (Registered Owner of Tractor No.CG04- ZG-8392 <& Trolley No. C&04-ZG-8393) 2. Tarachand, son of Tribhuvan Sahu, Chhotu Naik, aged about 28 years, resident of Village Teka, Tehsil -Rajim, bistrict Raipur (CG). (wrongly shown Owner, whereas only briver of Tractor No.CG04-ZG- 8392 <& Trolley No. CG04- ZG-8393 in claim petition) 1. Thanuram, son of bukalu Ram Sahu, aged abput 35 years, resident of resident of Village Teka, Tehsil Rajim, Distnict Raipur, Presently residing at Navapara (Gobra), P.S. Navapara (Gobra), ^ Non-applicant District Raipur. No.2/ 2. The United India Insurance company Insurance Company Limited, through the bivisional Mana^er, Kutchari Chowk, Raipur (CG) (Insurer of Tractor NO.CG04-ZG-8392 <& Trolley No. CG04-ZG- 8393) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 ^f(L. HIGH <X>URT OP CHHATriSGARH. BILA UR DB: Hon*ble I. M. QUDDUSI & Hon*ble OHULAM MINHAJUDDIN, JJ APPBLLANT: RB8PONDBWTS: M.AICI No. 1067/2008 Ramdheen Saliu aad another Vs. Thanuraoi aad aaotiier MISC. APPEAL UWDBR SBCTION 173 OP THE MOTOR VBHICLBSACT. 1988 Appearance: Mr. B. P, Sharma with Mr, Vwek Chopda, counsel for fhe appeUaats. Mr. Sanjay S. Agrawal, counsel for rcspoaideitt xiQ.2* ^ Per I.M. OUDDUSL J. ORAL ORDBR (16.06.20111 2. This appeal has b^m filed by the owner mid driver of fhe Tractor against the iaipugaed award dated 26.04.2008 passed by VII Additional Motor Accidcait Claims Tribur^l Raipur, Distt. Raipiir (C.G) ia Claim Case No.69/2006 so far as it relates to quaatuin and fastexung liabiUty on fhe owner and driver as the Insurance Compaay has been exonexated froin its Uability to pay coxuipensation. Brief facts of the case as per fhe v^rsioa of the claitnaiit/iqjured are fhat on 03.06.2005 he was teaveliag between viUage Siiraabandha & Shyaoinagar by sittmg m Tractor & Trolley bearing Regn.No.C.G.04-ZG/8392 and C.G.04-ZG/8393 respectivety. On the way at about 11.80 D.m., when the said vefaicle was beiag driven by appellant ^T^: .f^^' 'Y ^^ no,2 Tarachand in a xash aad ii.egligeiit manner, fhe claimaat iajiired who was sittiag over fhe bags contaiiimg paddy in fhe trolley feU down and sustaiaed vadous iajuries/Jfcactures on fhe body oftus person due to wlaicli he became penaaaentty disabled to fhe extent of 90%. The mjurcd/clamiant has ffled claim petition u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claioaing compensation to tfae tune of Rs.8,05,000/- on various heads. 3. The Tribunal has held fhatdue to xash aad negligeQt driving of fhe said Tractor & Trolley by appeUant no.2, fhe claimant fell down aad became permanenfly dis^ted oa account of grievous mjuries/fiactures sustaiaed by him; fhere was breach of poUcy conditions and appeUacit no.2 was not haviag valid and eflfective driviag license.It has awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,49,200/- whteh fhe claimant is entitled to receive fix>m the non-appMcaiite joiiifly aad severalty. 4. We have heard leam^i coimsel for the parties aiid have also penised fhe records ofthe Trfbunal. S. The Tnbimal has held that sia.ee driver ofthe ®addTractor & Trolley was not haviag vafid and eflfective driviiig license on the date ofaccident, fhe insuraxice Company is not iiable for payment of compensatioa, It is a matter of recoxd ffaat the driver of the Tractor & TroUey was having a drivmg liceiise to drive fhe Light Motor Vehicle as also motorcycle which w^s valid and eflTective on tfae date ofaccident It is also admitted fhat fhe Tractor in questiou was meant for fhe use of atEricultural purposes and its Registeation Cterti&c^te was ".^. ""\ v^ ^s^^i %-••'• ^'-' issued for the same purpose. The iiisuranee poUcy was dlso issued under fanner's padkage poUcy. The Ii^uraaice Company has examiaed Ashwia Kumar AwadNa as N.A,W. 1, who was working as Assistant Grade-IM m Reglonj^ Traasport Ofi&ce, Raipur. He has stated m his cross- examiaation that therc is no meixtioii of driviiig the Tractor, but fhe Ucense of the Tractor-Trolley is made fix>m fhe same register. A perusal of evidence of this witoess shows fh.at fhe permit was not especiatly rcquired for the Tractor-Trolley wfaen it is being used for agriculteral purposes. At tite tiaxie of accident, fhe trofley attached to tfae Tractor was containmg agdcultural produce that is Paddy. 6. Section 66 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "tfae Acf") provides for necessily for pennits, Sub-section (1) section 66 is rclevant here aad quoted below: a66. NecCTwtty ft>r peranlte*—(1) No owner of a motor vehicle shaU iise or permit the iise of fhe vehlcle as a ta'aasport vehicle io. any public place whefher or not such vehicte is actoally caxiying aay passengers or goods save in accQnlBaice wifh fhe conditions of a penmt graated or coiiaterstgiied by a Reglonal or State Transport Auffaority or aay prescribed aufhorily au&orizmg him fbe use of the vehicle in tfaat place ia fhe mamier in wfaach the vehicle is bemg used: Provided fhat a stage carriage permit sfaall, subject to any conditions tfiat may be specified ia the permit, authonze fhe use offhe vefaicle as a contract cam^e: Provided furfher tfaat a stage carriage permit may^ subject to any cooditions fhat may be specijSed ia fhe pennit, aufhorize fhe use of fhe vehicle as a goods carriage either whea canymg passengers or xiot: 'l 'o^'-^ Provided also that a gpods carrtoge ^rmit shaB, sub,|ect to any conditions that may be speci&ed ia ttie pennit, autfaorize the holder to use the vehicle for fhe camage of goods for or in coiinectioii wifh a teade or business carded on by him. A bare reading of fhe above provisioas wouM sliow that necessity of pennit is only for traiisport vehicles aad if there is 110 iiecessity of permit for the Tractor-Troll^ meaiit ft>r agdcultural purpose, fhe same caanot be held to be a transport vehicle. 7. Now we have to cons&der whether the Tractor and Trolley come withia fhe deJ&aition of LMV or nofc ^Light Motor Vehiclc^ has been <tel5ned m sub-section (21) ofSection 2 of the Act which reads as under: <fLight Motor Vehicle3' meaiis a tcaxisport vehicle or omnibus fhe gross vehicle weight ofeither ofwhich or a motor car or tractor or road roUer fbe imladexi weight of aay of which, does not exceed 7500 Kilograms.a? Further, Rule 2 of tfae Central Motor Vehicles Riries, 1989 also deate with defiaitions. Sub-rule (b) & (c) of Riite 2 defines <ltfagncultural tractoi^ and <tfagricultural trsdlei^ as under: 2(b) "agdcultural tractoi^ meaas any mechanicaBy propelled 4 wheel vehicle designed to woxfc with suitable iinpleaiients for various field operatioas and/or trgdlers to teansport agricBltiual materials. Agricultural toractor is anon-transport vehicle. 2(c] "agncultural traitex^ means a trailer gexxera]ly left uncovered wifh smgle/double axte construction which is coupled to an Agriciiltuial /,., // ..-.m.N o^ Tractor by means of two hooks aiid predomiaantly used for transportmg agriciiltural materials; 8. Accordiag to fhe RC, the unladen weight of fhe Tractor was 1680 Kgs., and tfaat ofthe TroUey was 1000 Kgs. Thus, fhe total unladen weigtit of Tractor-TroUey eomes to 2680 Kgs, Since fhe total unladen we^ht ofbofh the Tractor Trolley is 2680 KUograins, the same is weU withia fhe prcscritoed Umit ie., 7500 Kilog^'aitts. Therefore, ia the iastaitt case, fhe Tractor-TroUey comes wifhia tihe punriew of Light Motor Vehicles for which no permit eQdorsing fhe driver to diive the Tractor was required and as such, we hold that fhe dnver of ttte Tractor was haymg vaUd aad eflG^tive driviiig Ucense on fhe date of accident to drive fhe vehicle i.e. LMV aad there was no necessily of endorsement authoiiziag fhe driver especiaUy to dnve fhe Tractor or a traaspart vehicle. 9. In view of tfae above, we hold fhat fhe Claims Tribimal has coHLmitted xnaaifest error oflaw ia exQneratmg tfae msurance company/respondent no.2 aad fastenmg liabflily upoa fhe appeUante (owner and driver) to pay fhe coinpensation, Therefore, we attow fhis appeal, set aside fhe findings wifh regard to issues No.3 & 4 and direct that (he owaer and driver of fhe Traetor-TroUey in question, appellaats herem, arc exonerated iBx>m tihieir UabiMty to pay .compexisation aad the Insuraace Company/respondent no.2 is liable to pay compensation. It wiU be open for the claimants to rea&ze the amount ofconipensation froixi fhe Insurance Company. ^'\.^ !i^— ': H^ 10. At this stage, leanied counsel for respondeat no»2 submite fhat the Tribunal has imposed penal Snterest @ 9% per anniim which is not sustauiable, When fhe simple intex^est @ 6'% has been granted, imposition of fhe penal iaterest @ 9% per anniiTn afier fhe stipulated period m not proper. Therefore^ fhe penal mterest mentioned ia sub-psaa (2) of Para 24 of tfae award is set aside. The olaimacit Bhatt be entitled to get sioiple interest @ 6% per anniim thxough out from fhe date of ftling of the claioi applieation ttU the payment is made. 1!• In fhe result, fhe appeal is allowed. No oaxler as to cost(s), 12. The amount deposited by fhe appellants sfaall be aMowed to be wifhdrawn. However» if the sanie has already beeii disbureed to the claimant, it will be open for fhe appelteits to realize jfiroia fhe Insurcuace CoiDpany. j Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao