imw’ Hm’abm WWR: m ramma', faa'mg? 'gfErFaaI 3irr‘Ta gm'm": - égvzowg @Ev§$§mn SEam$ 31W EémWrr? aima‘i‘ 1%. ‘ air-ET “faTTaT'aa 2%? W,gff rm‘T— mm- yam, s{ u’TETfa z mm%—wm 1/ J1 TaaEtbiTW — ~ .s— QWWT ifwT ‘smé Elm 53mm wrgyn‘g 50 arm, mmw arrma gm mg JET 23 HWY, gym yaw mam gm'm mg ‘ mg 25 am, {rrrraif’aa 31'TT—m67 ga‘z‘m JR; 1 9 Hm, E364? Fm? aw mam gmm’n ‘l 3H3; 15 62m, wriswm 3mm gmm was; ifrg 13 Hm wrm‘c‘tV—s e‘ 6 (TLn—‘W N’m‘ Em‘ IfT 9g°rsrtfr gf‘emmm i‘faT ‘ aarm Tc Mt; 50 rm ma‘? ftmT’br um”; LgfT mFe airfmq émgmm‘ grm’rc: ‘f‘am g3? g amg mmm%m marmfmm WW3% arena wgff‘#g Ham‘jw ama EWT/aaw’iqw mm 3 7/33wza am“, J? C gz / ’ f ar .é’/2I’/ 5O ”TTU V _ y czumm? maw TQ mm? Thmmm mar? gm ammfaam 37/3E1az wag??? g5“? fGMT §v$ 3 @WJE 9;- %i:x‘h"m 3mm? /, f‘wyf‘aai WW HWfH uwr n73 v Em? ma Wummr ” 1988 mm m%f‘€§a ~:I;?E? EEWT aTaT 3¥faa3m ~ 3 WE E5 $- Wthgn? § x 50 :10 _ g, :NT “-3 mm M $3 _ €363? ‘ \gw 1+8/2003 tr . crrfm 3nmmgiU'rqr .o mar’rfm M v 3I/03/2003 amm § e. gwmmré n @Iw Mm mun? aihg — % 10am altr°ra ? w w: 3w 45 m? @6mm WET, gv‘f, Wm g3? mam. a u— / i ¥ V . W v: gmww 3,29,000=0G z§v® g “ ” V 1 :1 / / ‘ MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 ' DB: Hon’ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8s Hon’ble Shri N. K. Agarwal, JJ Shri Sri Kumar Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 9. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 26th day of November, 2010 ) Per I. M. Quddusi J. Heard. The instant appeal, filed by the appellant Insurance Company, arises from the award dated 31$ March, 2003, passed by the 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg in Claim Case No. 48/2003 on the ground that the liability has wrongly been fastened on the Insurance Company as the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. The facts, in brief, are that on 19.9.1994 deceased Dhruvram was going to attend his duty in H.S.C.L. Bhilai by sitting in a Tempo, having registration No. M.B.L. 8313. At that time, near. Nehru Chowk railway crossing a Truck, having registration No. 8545, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the non-applicant No.1, directly hit the Tempo, as a result of which various passengers received injuries and Dhruvram' died during the course of treatment. y M. A. No. 613 of 2003 (V) Appellant National Insurance Company Versus Respondents Smt. Sukhia Bai 86 others The non—applicant No.2 was owner and non—applicant 3 Was insurer of the offending vehicle — Truck. The legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim case under n 166 of 'o the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 4,27,640/— under various heads. Learned Tribunal, having regard to the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, granted a total compensation of Rs. 3,29,000/ — along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record. The appellant/Insurance Company has produced the official of the R.T.O. Dhoulur along with the R.T.O. records, as witness No. 3 namely Bhagwan Singh, who has stated that the lience on 23.5. 1989 was not issued to the driver from the R.T.O. Dhoulpur but the reneWal of the same was made by the R.T.O. Raipur thus the original licence was fake. In normal way when the original licence is fake, the renewal of the same, though may be genuine but on the fake licence, that renewal has no legal effect and the original licence, which is a fake cannot be termed as genuine. But the owner of the vehicle appeared in the witness box as witness No.1 for the non—applicant, namely Sanjay Agarwal, S/o Daya Shankar Agarwal, who has stated in examination in chief that Ram Pyare was the driver of the vehicle in question. On the date of accident he was having a driving licence which was got verified by the R.T.O. Raipur, who had verified the lience as genuine. He also brought the verification report, which was exhibited as EXD/l and the original of the same Was Ex.D/1—A, which was returned to the witness after getting it verified by the Driver. This witness has also stated that the driver Ram Pyare was 0. engaged by him only after etting his licence verified. It is not the g case hat the verifation made by the owner from the R.T.O. Raip t ic ur wa fake. Te renewa was made by he R.T.O’ Raipur from time s h l t to tie an o the date of accident the renewal was effective. m d n In the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Swarn Sgh 8a in thers 004) 3 CC 297 Hoble Apex Court hel as under : o (2 S n’ d “Where’the driver’s licence is found to be fake. 9 m t peti d b 2. It ay be rue as has been contended on behalf of the tioner that a fake or forge licence is as good as no licence ut the question herein, as noticed hereinbefore, is whether the isurer must prove that th owner was guilty of the willful breach of the ondition of the insurance policy or the contract of nsurance. In Lehru case the matte has been considered in some detail. We re i general agreement with the approach of the Bench but we intend to point out that the observations ad theein must be understood to have been made in the light of the requirements of the law in terms whereof the insurer s to stabli willfl breach on the part of the nsured nd not for the urpose its dintitlement from raising any defence or for the owners to be absolved from any liabilit whatsover. We would be deang in some detail with this pet m le ” e li asc of the atter a litt later. In view of the act that the licence was renewed ad erification of the f n v sam as made from the R.T.O. Raipur as genuine, it annot be said e w c that there wa any willful breach on the part of the owner of th s e vicle i question. The Insurance Company would nt have been liable i case it would he got success in proving that ere was a willl breach on the pa of the owner and in the present case the fu rt Inrance Comany ha iled to estaish he same zand also on the other se the owner of the truck i.. the insurer has successfully established that he had taken precaution and got verification of the n e cs i r a n ‘me r i esh u i a p of se y eh n o n av th su p s fa bl t id e driving lincence of the driver, which was renewed by the R.T.O. Raipur, who had verified the same and there was no willful breach on his part. In View of the above the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant are liable to be rejected. The appeal deserves to be and is dismissed. No order as to costs. . Sdl- ' l Scy— I.M.Quddusii ' N. K. Agaiwal _ Judge r 7 r W Judge Thakur