IN THE HIGH COURT JUbICATURE AT BILASPUR APPELLANT Misc. ADpeat [C] No. '2-2.M OF 2011 na^^^n n-s-Rf- s(^r~ ,/Cholamandalam MS General Insurance 1,7^' A Company Limited, throuqh Branch ^y/^x '.'.'"r~"' ^•^"^^••--3^ ^-" \y., ^- / i^ Manaqer, At Present bevendra lv}N>/y/^' <.-•' A'" ./L(^ ^/r/:^ y ,^\/s ^ RESPONbENT/ ,1. -CLAIMANT ^' // &RIVER 3<- OWNER 4. ^ Road, Near Chhoti Line, Raipur (C.6.) VERSUS Raju Patel urf Rajeev Patel S/o Sautam Patel Aged about 28 Years R/o Village Turma, P.S. Kasdol, Distt. Raipur C.G. Balram S/o Ramji Satnami Aged 21 Years R/o Vill. Khamhariya P.S. Bhatapara Sramin District Raipur C.6. Rajesh Kumar S/o Shrichand Talreja R/o Mahasati Ward, Bhatapara P.S. Bhatapara Shahar, Distt. Raipur C.6. APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT A6AINST THE AWARb/OR&ER bATED 30T69.2010 PASSED BY >nd AD&ITIONAL MOTOR ACCI&ENT CLAIAAS TRIBUNAL BALODABAZAR. DISTT. RAIPUR (C.e.) PRESIOEb OVER BY SHRI A. TOPPO IN C.T. N0. 96/2009. HON'BLE MR. I.m.QUDDUSI a .A.1C] No.: Vs Chotamoindalam MS ©eneral Insurance Company Limited Potel&others Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate for the appellant. '. P.K. Patel, Advocate for the respondent No.l. '. A.S. Rajput, Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 & 3. th 1. Heard. 2. The appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal against the award dated 30.9.2010 passed in Claim Co.se. No.96/09 whereby the learned 2nd Additiona! Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (CG\ (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') has partly allowed the claim application of the injured ctaimoint, awarded compensation and fastened liability on the appetlant herein to satisfy the impugned award. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.11.2008 the injured claimant Raju Patel ©Rajeev Patel had come to Baloda Bazar in connection with his some official work. After compteting the work, he was returning to Village Kurma on his motorcycle bearing registrntion number C613-G- 9165 along with his father Ramr'ntan Kewat & one ftaju Kewat. When he reached near Sacred Heart School, Lawan, one Minidor bear-ing r-egistration number C604-ZA-1889, coming from opposite direction and being driven in rash & negligent manner by it3 driver, dashed the motorcycle of the injured claimant as a result of which he sustained' grievous injuries on his brain, head & nose. He was taken to ©over-nment Hospital, Baloda Bazar in unconscious condition where he was given preliminary treatment and thereafter, he was referred to Kaipur. 'n/ ..^; ',"3<\ jf^-«'i, %. :•'"& '.' i Report of the accident was lodged by Ramratan Kewat in Police Station iaioda Bazar. The injured claimont sustained permanent disability in the said accident and therefore, he has filed a claim dpplication seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- on the ground that due to permanent disabilit/ sustained by him in the said accident, he has suffered loss of earning capacity and as such, he is entitied for compensation. The Claims Tribunal yide impu9ned award partly altowed the claim application, awarded a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- alon9 with interest @ 6% p.a. ond saddled the appellant h'erein with the liability to satisfy the 5. Learned counsel for the dppellant has submitted that the vehicle involved in the instant case is a commercial yehicle, whereas the driver, who was drivin9 the said vehicle, was only hotding the licence to driye Light Motor Vehicles and there was no endorsement in the said iicence authorizing him to drive commercial transport vehicle. Therefore, there was breach of conditions of insurance policy. 6. On the other hand, learned counset for the respondents have supported the impugned award. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as also the record of the Claims Tribunal. 8. In the matter of Oriental reported in (2009) 11 SCC thus: Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angad 356 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held "Although the definition of 'light^motor vehicle' brings within its umbrage both "transport vehicle" or "omnibus", indisputably, a distinction between an effective driving licence gronted for transport vehicle and passenger motor vehicle exists. The distinction between a 'iight motor vehicle' cmd a 'tronsport vehicle' is evident. A transport vehicle may' be a light motor vehicle but for 1+i.e purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained. The distinction between a transport vehicte and a "passenger vehicie" can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Act. Section 14 (2) provides for duration of a period of three years in case of an effective driving licence to drive a 'transport vehicte, ^H whereas in case of ony other licence, it may remain effective for a period of twenty years. Thus, it is eyident that a transport vehicie may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained......." 9. In the case of New India Assurancs Co. Ltd. Vs. reported in 2008 (l) SCC 696 it was held thus:- "30. Now, it is the case of the Insurcnce Company that the vehicle of the compiainant which met with an accident was a "transport vehicle". It wos submitted that the insured vehicle was a "good carriage" and was thus o "transport vehicle". The vehicle was driyen by Ram Narain, who was authorized to drive light motor vehicle cnd not a transport vehicie. Since the driver had no licence to drive transport vehicle in absence of necessary endor-sement in his iicence to that effect, he could not have driven Tata 709 cnd when that vehic!e met wi4ti an accident, the Insurance Company could not be made liabie to pay compensation. 10.In the matter of New India Assuranca Co. Itd. Vs. Rahemansha Fakir and another reported in 2008 (3) T.A.C. 20 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court repelling the submission of learned counsei for the respondent that it did not matter as to whertier the driving licence issued for auto rickshaw was adapted for carrying passengers or goods has heid that the driyer was not holding an effective driving licence to drive auto rickshaw deliyery van. 11. Indisputably, in the instant case the offending vehicle was the AAinibus, a commercial goods carrying vehicle, and the licence issued to the driver of offending vehicle was for a period of 20 years i.e. from the year 20.10.2004 to 16.8.2024, meaning thereby the licence is issued for the purpose of a vehicle other than a commercial goods carrying vehicle as had it been granted for commer&ial vehicle, the tenure thereof could not hwe exceeded to three years, ois per Section 14 (2) (a) of the Act, 1988. Therefore, we feel 1+iat the Claims Tribunal has committed a manifest error of law in holding the appellant-insurance compeiny tiable to pay compensation. 12.At this stage, leamed counsel for the respondent No.3 has submitt-ed that owner of the motor- cycle has not disclosed as to whether there was any insurance policy with regard to the motor cycle andwhether ^ the compensation could have been ciaimed for the damages of motor cycle from the insurance company or not and also •riiat three passengers including the driver were allowed on 1+ie said vehicie, which was not permissible under Section 128 of the AAptor Vehicles Act, 1988 wherein it has been provided that no drivep ofa two-wheeled mo+or cycle shall carry more -tiian one person in addition to himself on ihe motor cycle and no such person shall be car'ried otherwise -that sitting on a proper seat securely fixed to 'the motor cycle behind the driver's seat witfi appropria+e safety measures. Therefore, the owner of offending yehicle cannot be held liable to pasy compensatjon. 13. Accordingly, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the part of the impugned award by which the appellant-Insuronce Compony has been he!d liable to pay compensgtion. However, in view of the submissions made by learned counse! for the respondent No.3. with a view to provide an opportunity to respondent No.3 to plead his co.se, the matter is remitted back to the Claims Tribunat to reassess the amount of compensation after providing opportunity of hearing to the owner of offending vehicie, who has been held responsible to pay compensation. The clainiiants and other concerned parties shall also be heard on the question of quantum and shall be provided opportunity to adduce further evidence if any. The amount, which has already been deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company and yet not disbursed to the claimants, shall be refunded to the appelloint Insurance Company. In case, the amount so deposited has been withdrawn by the claimants, it will be open for the qipellant to recover the same from the owner of the offending yehicle. 14.The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 4 Jonuary. 2012. The Registry is directed to transmit record of the Claims Tribunal without any further delay ---.. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge roshan/-