3^.^-.-? IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) M.C.C. N0. £>~l{, OF2011fD.B.) APPLICANTS APPELLANTS.^ ^^s- ^yy ^^ ?^"^ .^ ^ ..••"^^" \^y^ -'<^s . RESPONDENTS : NON-CLAIMANTS 1. Smt. Sangeeta Nitin Khodave W^/o. La.tc Nitin Khodave, aged about 33 years, 2. Harshit Khodave S/o. Late Nitin Khodave, aged about 12 years, 3. Miss Vaishnavi Khodave D/o. Late "Nitin Khodave, aged about 4 years, Appellants no.2 to 3 are fhrough their mother Smt. Sangeeta Nitin Khodave (Appellant No.l) All are Residence of Ashoka Apartment No2, Dharampura Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Gopal Kashyap, S/o. Shri Raghunath Kashyap, aged about 22 years Residence of Kumharpara Shriram Prasad Mukharjee ward Sawnra Para, Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) 2. Bhupendra Singh Rajput, S/o. B.S. Rajput, Residence of Sangam. Hotel, State bank Chowk, Main road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through - Branch Manager, Mahatama Gandhi Road, Near Jhankar Talkies, Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.j. MISCELLANECOUS CIVIL CASE FOR JCORRECTION IN ORDER DATED 02/09/2011 PASSED IN M.A.(C) No. 491 OF 20ir~IN CASE^ OF "SMT. SANGEETA NITIN KHODAVE AND OTHERS^/S^ GOPAL KASHYAP AND OTHERS" BY THE DIVISION BEN-CH-OP THIS HON'BLE COURT HI6H COURT OF CHHATHS6ARH AT BILASPUR bIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.nl.QUD&US! <& HON'BLE MR.6ULAM rtINHAJUD&IN. JJ tt.C.C. No.653/2011 ^ Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Smt. Sangeeta Nitin Khodbe & others i.C.C. No.676/2011 Vs Smt. SangeeTa Nitin Khodbe & others (Sopal Kashyap <& others. Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the cyplicant in M.C.C. No.653/11. fAr. P.K. Tulsiyaan, Advocate for the applicants in AA.C.C. No.676/11. ,th I.tt. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard on I.A. No.l filed in M.C.C. No.676/11 for- exemption from filing certified copy of the order dated 2.9.2011. 2. Considedng the reasons mentioned in the application, it is allowed. The applicants are exempted from filin9 certified copy of fne or-der dated 02.09.2011. 3. h\.C.C. No.653/11 filed by the applicant-Insyrance Company and M.C.C. No.676/11 filed by the applicants-clatfflcnts in Clajm Case No.36/09 are being disposed of' by this common as both these applications have been filed for modificaTion in the oral order dated 02.09.2011 passed in M.A. (C) No.491/11 (Smt. Sangeeta-Nitin Khodave & others Vs. Sopal Kashyap & ol+iers) and M.A. (C) No.492/11 (Tns. New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. San9eeta Nitin Khodave & others). 4. Feeling aggrieved by the award dated 07.12.2010 passed by the learned 1 Additional Moto^ Accident Claims Tribiiinal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Ccses No.36/09 & 37/09, the ciaimants cis weil as the insurance company both have filed four separate miscellcaieoys appeats i.e. AA.A. (C) Nos. 492/11 <& 446/11 by the insurance company and M.A. (C) Nos.491/11 & 490/11 by the claimants in aforementioned claim cases. However, M.A. (C) Nos. 491/11 & 492/11 were decided by the separate order and M.A. (C) Nos. 490/11 & 446/11 were decided by •rfie separate order. 5. Perused both the applications and the order dated 02.09.2011. 6. In the order dated 02.09.2011 vide which M.A. (C) Nos. 491/11 <& 492/11 were decided inadvertently the point regarding valid and effective driving licence and rate of simple interest, as deait specifically in M.A. (C) Nos. 492/11 & 446/11, have been left to be mentioned. Therefore, in the order dated 02.09.2011 passed in M.A. (C) Nos. 491/11 & 492/11 the reasons regarding holding of valid dnd effective driving licance as well rate of interest, as mentioned in order dated 02.09.2011, is liable to be mentioned. Accordingly, following be added in Para-11 of the order dated 02.09.2011 passed in M.A. (C) Nos. 491/11 & 492/11;- "........So far cis the 9round raised by the appellont-Insurance Company regarding valid and effective driving licence is concerned, we have perused the driving licence available on the record hnd found that there is an endorsement dated 15.01.2009 in the dri'/ing licence to the effect that the driver is authorized to drive light tronsport vehicles and the so.me was duly signed by the Regional Transport Officer, Jagdalpur. However, later on, the said endor-sement was canceited by the ftegional Transport Officer, Jagdalpur on 9.6.2009 i.e. after the accident which took place on 28.5.2009, on the ground that due to some clerical mistake said endorsement was made on the licence of the driver. Further, the owner of offending vehicle has stated in his statement that he ho-s not only seen and examined the driving licence produced by the driver but also took test of driving of the driver and foued that the driver wds competent To drive the vehicle and thereafter only he appointed him as driver of The \^ \b vehicle in question. In These circumstances, it cannot be said that . the yehicie was piied in br-each of terrns and conditions of the insurance poiicy ds there was no endorsement author'izing Itie driver to drive lighT trcnsport vehicies and as such, owner of the offending vehicle cannot be held liable. Thus, we are of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal has not committed any illegality or impropriety in absolving owner of the offending vahicle and fastening liability on the appellantlnsurance Compciny." Following b®added in Para-14:- ".....The clQimants shalt also be entitled to receive simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of ciaim q)piication till actual payment is made. Rest of The conditions imposed by 1+ie Claims Tribunal shail remain intact" 7. In yiew of ttbove, bot'n the applications are disposed of and the ordar dated 02.09.2011 is modified to the extent indicated dbove. This order shall form part of the order datad 02.09.2011 passed in M.A. (C) Nos. 491/11 <& 492/11. —— Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge