''-/~i-^~-'Fv~i.n.^</-o^/-;,^^^ c^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.fClNo. ^O 12010 mnt '• APPELLANT ^Non-App. no. 1 (Owner) B RESPONDENTS \-: 1, (Claimants) ,.,_ \^lor.-1^ ^^^-z E:."%.€..^--" ^- 3. 4. <r6; Shahabuddin, S/o Moh. Kamru Jamma, aged about 48 years, R/o village Mominpura, Ambikapur Distt Satguja (C.G.) VERSUS Surendra Prajapati, S/o Late Ramsewak aged about 32 years, Radhika Devi, W/o Late Ram Sewak, aged about 50 years, Jhubli Devi W/o Late Narayan Prajapati, aged about 85 years, Mahendra prajapati S/o Late Ram Sewak Prajapati, aged about 25 years All R/o village Deogai P.S. Ramanujganj Tahsil Pal District Sarguja (C.G.) Prabhu Vishwakarma, S/o Jagdeo Vishwakarma, aged about 52 years, Occupation Driver, Popular bus No. C.G. 15A/7422 R/o Ratu Road Ranchi (Jharkhand).................. (Driver) Bajaj Alliance General Insurance ompany Limited, Chhattisgarh, Complex office Raja Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) © CLAIM BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL : AWARD AMOUNT : VALUATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL ^" Rs. 19,30,000/- w^ Rs. 90;000/- SO,GOO/- Rs. 10,10,000/- MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 1'73 OF THEniOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 :(>•' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (C) No. 257 of2011 Appellant/ Owner Respondents/ Claiinant Shahabuddin VERSUS Mohd. Bismillah &, others Ansari Appellant/ Owner Misc. Appeal (C) No. 640 of 2010 Shahabuddin Respondents/ Claiinants VERSUS Surendra Prajapati 85 others (Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act) SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal. Present : Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate for the appellant/owner. Shri Vikram Dixit, Advocate for respondent/claimants. None for respondent/Driver. Shri SS Rajput, Advocate for respondent/Insurance Company. ORALAWARD (Passed on 27.04.2011) 1. Heard on admission. 2. By this common award, MA(C) Nos. 257/11 and 640/10 are h. -^,..-...-. being disposed of as the common facts 85 issues are involved in both the appeals and are arise Out of same accident. 3. Both the appeals have been directed by the owner ofthe vehicle against the award dated 26.10.2010 and 16.03.2010, passed by the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanujganj, Distt. Surguja (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case Nos. 31/09 and 7. 10/09 respectively preferred by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Acf). Brief facts of the case are that: on 08.10.2010, while the claimant Mohd; Bisraillah Ansari along with Ramsevak Paikra (since deceased) were riding on motoreycle bearing registration No. CG-15-C-3065 met with an accident with Bus bearing registration No. CG-15-A-7522 as a result of which claimant/Bismillah Ansari (in MAC No. 257/11) sustained multiple injuries and Ramsevak Paikra (in MAC No. 640/10) succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. Claimants preferred claim petitions claiming compensadon for the injuries sustained/death in the said accident against the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle in question. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made by the parties, assessed compensation and awarded Rs. 40,000/- in MA(C) No. 257/11 and Rs. 90,000/- in MAC No. 640/10 in favour of claimants payable by the appellant/owner and driver of the offending vehicle along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its payment, exonerated the insurance company from its Uability to pay compensation to the claimants holding driver of offending vehicle was not possessihg valid and effective driving licence at tke tiine of accident. Shri Sinha, leamed counsel appearing for the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle would submit: appellant/owner has appointed the driver after due care and caution, and therefore- there is no willful breach on the part of owner and the tribunal has erroneously fastened liability upon the appellant/owner to ^) ^ pay compensation to the claimants, and therefore, the appeal deserve to be allowed. 8. I have heard the counsel appearing for the appellant, perused the award impugned and records of the Tribunal. 9. Admittedly, the vehicle in question is medium passenger motor vehicle within the definition of Section 2(24) of MV Act as gross vehicle weight of the vehicle is 9000 kg. It is also not in dispute that driver of the vehicle was having licence to drive light motor vehicle only at the dme of accident, therefore, on the face, he was not possessing licence to drive inedium passenger vehicle at fhe time of accident. Moreover, he was also not having licence to drive transport vehicle. All these facts were well within the knowledge of the appellant at the time of engaging respondent No. 5 as his driver. Therefore, willful beach of conditions of policy on the part of appellant/owner is apparent on the face of record and the contention raised by Shri Sinha is devoid of merit. 10. In view of above, in the considered opinion bf this coiul the tribunal has not committed any illegality in exonerating the insurance company from its Uability to pay compensation to the claimants and fastening liability upon the appellant/owner as well as driver of the vehicle. 11. For the reasons mendoned hereinabove, the appeals deserve to be and are herby dismissed. No order asto costs, 1 . ;--i. i^'l -I.-t Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sahu t i ^ ' \ {. i i^ t'..