rmi IN THE HONBLE HIOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATn&GARH) M.A.fC}NO.w 72008. APPEALLANTS: t'' < . ! ^ ^ ..-^^ .^•:^ .y ^^."•^'' ^^••••"^ 1. Jitendra Kmnar Yadav, son of Shri Phool Chand Yadav, aged about 30 years, Caste Mahkool, residence of village Bursa, Police Station Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Cbhattisgarh. r. Vinay Kumar Gupta, son of Late K.P.Grupta, aged about SOyears residence of Tapkara, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ^Registered Owner of Passengers Bus No. C.G. 14A72012) Respondents versus (yr- \ Kameshwar Ram, son of Saliendar Ram, aged about 38 years, caste Raitiya. L Ravi ShankM' Rgyga^ sc&i of Shri Kameshwar Rain, aged about 17 years. 3. Ku.Urmila Bai, daughter bf Sl?ri Kaxneshwar Ram, a^d about t^ k years. ^ Ku.Sarita Bai^ Shri Kaniieshwar RBSSI^ aged about 13 years. ^"'_^' . _. . " _.. . ^- ^ Shiv Sliankar Ram, Shii K^ixeshwar <^jfo7M Ram, aged about(5^years.., ^v4[^ ^ ijo^I^- AI1 belongs to caste<Raifiya^^| resident of village CiiapatoK, Pdlice Station Jashpur, Tahsil Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgaih< AU minors throngh legal guardian father K^in^shwar R.ajm. ^- '•''ss^ Ki 8118 ^l 1;H 'i !1.», ^ 6. The Oriental Insurance Coinpany Limited, Divisional Office near High Court Bilaspur (C.G.)Present Address Opposite Rajeev Plaza, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 1^-" MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTJON 173 OF THEMOTOR VEHICLE ACT. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (Q No. 864 of 2008 APPBLLANTS Jitendra Kumar Yadav and another. Versus RESPONDENTS Kameshwar Ram and others. SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J PRESENT:- Shri Bharat Lal Dembra with Shri Santosh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Rakesh Anthony, Advocate for respondents No.l to 5 Shri Ghanshyam Patel on behalf of Shri Abhishek Sinha for respondent No.6. ORALAWARD (17.11.2011) This is owner's appeal against the award dated 01.02.2008 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jashpur in Claim Case No. 02/2007. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.21,45,000/- claimed by the legal representatives of deceased Sanpati Bai by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988?), the learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,79,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. '; ^ 3. The learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led held: the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing No. C.G. 14 A-2012 by its driver Jitendra Kumar Yadav, appellant No.l; deceased Sanpati Bai died on account of injuries sustained by her in the said accident: respondent No.6/0riental Insurance Company Limited not responsible for payment of compensation as it had successfully proved the violation of policy conditions; assessed and awarded the aforesaid sum as compensation in favour of claimants and against the appellants while exonerating respondent No.6/0riental Insurance Company Limited from its liability to pay conipensatlon. 4. Shri B.L.Dembra and Shri Santosh Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit: the photocopy of licence of appellant No.l - Jitendra Kumar Yadav filed by the appellants before the Tribunal is valid and effective driving licence to drive the Bus in question. However, the Tribunal has erred in holding that said licence is only effective to drive light motor vehicle (LMV) whereas the licence is valid to drive the Bus in question and thus has erred in fastening liability to pay compensation upon the appellants. ^^CWSSS^S^SKTS-S£s f <^^^-" h^ 5. The appellants have also filed a copy of licence before this Court. 5. During the pendency of the appeal, the copy of licence has been verified by respondent No.6/0riental Insurance Company Limited and it is found that appellant No.l was having and valid driving licence to drive the Bus in question at the time of accident. 6. In view of above admitted fact, it is apparent that the Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that appellant No.l was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and thereby in exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation. 7. For the foregoing, the appeal is allowed in part. Respondent No.6/0riental Insurance Company Limited is also held liable for payment of compensation to the claimants jointly and severally along with the appellants. The award is modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions of the award shall remain intact. 8. If the amount deposited by the appellants is disbursed to the claimants, the appellants are at liberty to recover from respondent No.6/insurance company. If the amount is not £ I- disbursed to the claimants, the saine shall be returned to the appellants. 9. Respondent No.6/0riental Insurance Company is granted three months' time to deposit the amount before the concerned Claims Tribunal. 10. No order as to costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge .^ si«s^^^@3Sg5SiS»ai-.m3?":SSS??.;:?3^Si'gu5-Siu53"