IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIC^TURE AT BILASP0R. CHHATHSGARH 0 M. A. No. -13^/'^3 QF 2002, (Memorandum of Appeal^Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicl^srAct, 1973) APPELIANT Venus RESPONDENTS CUUMANTS '" Sh-'""";~i,Jr-. VW^" ^•m£^ £J^' T dat»a \?2-'A'2—':'^ RESPONDENT OWNER RESPONDENT DRIVER Oriental Insurance Company Umited, Branch Ambikapur, near State Bank of India, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) ^l. Smt. Jaishree Sharma, aged about 42 years, widow of Late Surya Prakash Sharma ^i- 2. Raja Sldhharth Sharma, aged about 20 years, S/o Late Surya PrakashSharma ^-3. KumarAnnu Sharma, aged about 18 years, D/o Late Surya Prakash Sharma ,AII residents of Arora Cement Factory Colony, Manendragarh Road, Ambikapur, district Sargiya (Chhatttsgarh) ^~4. Ajmad Utla Ansarl, aged about 22 years, S/o Shri Uzrul Ansari, resldent of Moinpura, Ambikapur, Dist. Sargyja (Chhattlsgarh} i. Imtiyaz Khan, aged about20 years, S/o Shri Lulchu, Driver, resident of implipara, Ambfkapur, districjt Sarguja (Chhattisaarh] ^ ^' W*K(i MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SBGTION 173 QFMOTOIl VEHICLESACT 1973 vt^/^ ~^ M Vffi Utb .\tW!^,. e^ ^-^.j a :^:^ "^ ^^ Ul '^ \° K^L^'^ . a%x, > jax-S^S:-?a"ilr^.M«te">«•«,»/<» . *atel)c*t>iuc;-aR«TE«?~Z3dF^2 &.f8a»n, W.ststet'S^Je, (S°®J* 1 '-ig3»s lk.l reIN,|] HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR HON'BLE %R. I.M.QU&&USI & i.A. No. 136/2003 Orientat Insurtance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Jaishree Sharma S. others Mr. Sudhir Agarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R. Mishra, Advocate for the respondents No.l to 3. None for respondents No.4 & 5. ORbER (Oran (4th November, 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J: 1. Heard. 2. The oppeliant-Insurance Company has fiied this appeal against the award dated 09.10.2002 passed in Claim Case No.26/99 whereby the iearned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C(5) (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') has partially allowed the claim application of the claimants, awarded compensation and fastened liability on the appellant herein to satisfy the impugned award. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimouits, who are widow and children of deceased, have filed a claim petition before the Ctaims Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.11,95,398/- for the death of deceased Surya Prakash Sharma, who died in a road accident which took place on 12.5.1998 when the driver of bus bearing registration number MP27-B-0347, who was driving the said bus in a rash ond negligent manner dashed the scooter of deceased Surya Prakash Sharma. The c!aimants have claimed compensation on the ground that they were dependent on the deceased, who was the sole earning member in the fomily, and due to his death, they have suffered loss of income. 4. The Ctaims Tribunat vide impugned award allowed the ctaim petition, awarded a sum of Rs.6,42,768/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. auid saddled the appellont herein with the liability to satisfy the award. li.il-L, -"(•• l'titi^bl.t^awESi, ,ISh.'l:: i^ liil'iM..': N !|"!!i '1"3liaN' 5. Learned counsel for the appeilant has submitted that at the time of accident the driver was not holding valid and effective licence to drive the said vehicle and thus, there was breach of conditions of insurance policy. However, the Claims Tribunal without considering the said fact has held the appelloint Insurance Company liabls to pay amount of compensation. 6. On the other hand, iearned counsei for the respondents No.l to 3- claiiriants has supported the impugned award. 7. We hme heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as aiso the record of the Claims Tribunat. 8. Indisputably, in the instant ca.ae the offending vehicle was the bus, a commercial transport vehicle, and the licence issued to the driver of offending vehicle was for a period of 20 year-s i.e. from the year 1997 to 2017, meaning thereby the licence is issued for the purpose of a vehicle other than a transport vehicle as had it been granted for transport vehicie, the tenure thereof could not have exceeded *»three years, as per Section 14 (2) (a) of the Act, 1988. However, the Claims Tribuna! considering the weight of vehicle has held that driver was holding vatid and effective driving licence, but we feel that the Claims Tribunai has committed a manifest error of law in considering the weight of vehicle instead of considering the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, 1988. 9. In the matt-er of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol & others reported in (2009) 11 SCC 356 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus; Although the definition of 'light motor vehicle' br"in9S within its umbrage both "tr-onspor-t vehicle" or "omnibus", indisputably, a distinction between an effective driving licence granted for transpor-t vehicle and passerger motor vehicle exists. The distinction between c 'light motor vehicle' and a 'troinsport vehicle' is evident. A transport vehicle may be a li9ht motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct iicence is required to be obtained. The distinction between a "transport vehicle" and Q "passenger' vehicle" can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Aet. Section 14 (2) provides for duration of a period of three years in case of an effective drivin9 !icence to drive a 'transport vehicle', whereas in case of any other licence, it nioy remain effective for a period of twenty years. Thus, it is evident that a transpori' vehicle moy be a light motor vehicle but for- the purpose of drivirg the same, a distinct iicence is required to be obtained......." •n tS^ iS'11^!- J.,1! i'^wr^\: ..;*3;^' M 10.In the caae of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal reported in 2008 (1) SCC 696 it was held thus;- 30. Now, it is the case of the Insurance Company that the vehicle of the complainant which met with an aecident wos a 'tr-ansport vehicle". It was submitted that the insured vehicle was a "good carriage" and was thus a "transport vehicle". The vehicle was driven by Ram Nar-ain, who wos authorized to drive ll9ht motor vehicie and not a transport vehicle. Since the driver had no licence to drive transport vehicle in absence of necessory endorsement in his licence to that effect, he cou!d not hdve driven Tata 709 and when that vehicle met with an accident, the Insurance Company could not be made liable to poy compensation." 11. In the matter of New India Assurance Co. itd. Vs. ftoshanben Rahemansha Fakir and another reported in 2008 (3) T.A.C. 20 (SC)the Hon ble Supreme Court repelling the submission of learned counset for the respondent that it did not motter as to whether the driving licence issued for auto rickshcnw wos adapted for carrying passengers or goods has heid that the driver was not holding an effective driving licence to drive auto rickshaw deliver/ van. 12. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal, set asids the part of the impugned award by which the appellant-Insurance Compony has been held liable to pay compensation and hold thot liabiiityto pay compensation would be of the owner/owners & driver of the offending vehicie. It is directed that if the cmount of compensation deposited by the appellant has not been disbursed so far to the claimonts, the appellant shali be allowed to withdraw the same and if the same has been withdrawn by them, it will be open for the appellant-Insurance Company to recover it from the owner/owners & driver of the offending vehicle jointly ond severally. It is also made clear that the claimonts are free to execute the award against the owner/owners of the offending vehicle. 13. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge ge iii iriiii itflrf.iiigd ^lil