-^? BEFORE THE HON*BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC.APPEAL (Cl N0.-p^ / 2010 'e' y ^ APPELLANT : /©hanshyam Sahu, S/o Shri Phool Chand ^ ^ Sahu, Aged about 24 years, R/o Village, l^c<^^ Junwani, Police Post - Jewra, P.S. Pulgaon, (AO-<'"^'^'... Tahsil 8s District Durg (C.G.) i.A^*" w" •'•"""^^•\f^^~ ................Owner 85 Driverofthevehicle ;** ...->.^l;?s ..•>•''''.°°' ^^" e^-^^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS : >. Uttam Nishad, S/o Ganesh Ram Nishad, ^ ^ Aged about 28 years. 2.^Smt. Sushila Bai, W/o Uttam Nishad, Aged about23 years (Both R/o Village Karanja Bhilai, P.S. Pulgaon, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Claixnants ^y -p-^<^ ^??' \-^SH^! '^s^yy^ 3,^-The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.,Branch No.l, Bhutani Complex, GE Road, Power House, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ^' Insurer MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice PrashantKymar Mishra Appellant MisGellaneous Appeal (C.) No.783 of 2010 Ghanshyam Sahu versys Respondents Uttam Nishad and others Present: Shri P.R.Patankar, counsel for the appellant. MiscellaneousADpeal underSection 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act; 1988 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 29th September, 2010) Heard on admission. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is by the owner of Mahindra Champion Jeep, a transport vehicle, bearing registration No.CG 07 T 0902. The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.52,000/- in favour of the daimants/respondents No.1 and 2 on account of death of their VA years' old son Deepak Kumar. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed before the Court acopy of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in MiscellaneousAppeal (C.) No.422/2002 preferred by the claimants of the present case seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. The said appeal for enhancement has been dismissed by this Court and thus the question regarding the /adequacy of compensation has attained finality. ws^^' 4. Shri Patankar, learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the Claims Tribunal has committed a serious error of law by exonerating respondent No.S/insurance company from the liability of satisfying the award on the ground that there was breach of condition of the insurance policy. He would strenuously urge that the gross laden weight of the vehicle being 915 Kgs. only, the said vehicle could not have been treated as transport vehicle but shoutd have been treated as light motor vehicle for which the driver was having a valid driving licence on the date of accident. He would further submit that the vehicte was insured by package policy and thus the insurance company should have been fastened with the liability. 5. The issue regarding requirement of a valid and effective driving licence vis-a-vis a light motor vehicle and transport vehicle has been set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Angad Kol and others, 2009 AIR SCW 2747. In the said matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is distinction between 'a light motor vehicle' and 'a transport vehicle' and that a transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, distinct licence is required to be obtained. 6. Admittedly, the driver of the vehicle was having a licence to drive a light motor vehicle and there was no endorsement in the driving licence that he is authorized to drive a transport vehicle. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in wer^a^- ^,.^^.^.^.^^:...^^ '% Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Angad Kol and others (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error of law by exonerating the insurance company from the liability of satisfying the award. 7. This Court has already taken similar view in the matter of Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited vs. SatyakumSr Harivyasi and others, Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.994/2009 decidedon 15-6-2010. 8. In view of the above, the instant miscellaneous appeal has no substance, it deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. ^__„ 1 Sd^- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge & Gopal