^^^^:^; lr'H^'U:' li$ 11!^-:;-HI; s^ -V- !iQH^©^^^F^^t^1^S6^H^T^ SB:Honiyje^hri^uifK^R.Ii.3haiii^ IVi.i.^No.l ^8^ 6^2010 ^APEEI.l.At^^^^^^jl^'^ NONiiE>PPCANTNO^ RjESfONBENTS Rarndasyaclav. :,Vep5us^^^:'l-^::-;'1.1 :, f^^KumarPahdeyan^ BR;:D;E,R.: FQrRronouncementQfQrder J2^05.20t Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ;x ^ <3) 'l "-?--<: HtGHCOURTOFCHHMTISGARHMBIjLj^P SB:Hon'bieShriJusticeR.L.Jhanwar, JViisc. Appeai (0 No. 1 181 /2010 APRELLANT NON-APPUCANTN0.1 Ramdas Yadav, s/o Krishna Yadav, aged ABOUT; 40 years, r/o Mohari Bhatha Statiort Maroda, Poiice Station Newai, Tah. and DJst. Durg (C.G.) Versus RgSPONDENT APPLJCANT NON-APPL(GANTN0.2 1 Rajeev Kumar Pandey, S/o K.P. Pandey, aged about j35 years, R/o Risali, B.S.P.IVIarket; jjShop No. 73, Lakshmi Flour Miil, P.S1 Newai, Tahssl and Dist. Durg | 2. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Parmanand Bhawan, G.E.IRoad, P.0. Box no. 51 Distt.Dur9(C.G.) APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 QF THE MOTORVEHICLES ACT Appearance: ::/.. ;: '^-^^^^^^^^^ ' i- : ' . , Shri Vipin Tiwari, counse! for the appellant. None for respondent'No.l J Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.2 ORDgB. (Passed on J3^Q5.2011) This is an appeal by the owner directing against the^^o 09D7.2010 passed by the 8th Additional MotorAcjcidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Durg in claim case No.25/20Q9 wherebythe learned Tribunal has awarded a sumof Rs.80,000/- as compensation to respondent No.1 in an injurycase. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.30,59,384/- claimed by the claimant by filing claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by hrm in the motor ^ccident on 01.04.2Q08, the Tribunal; on close scrutjny of the evidence, materia! placed and respectivesubmissions bytheparties, heidthat ori 01.04.2008 at 5.30 pm the appellant was driving the three wheeler offending vehide bearing No. C.G. 07 G/6290 in a rash and negiigerit mann negiigence driving he dashed the motor cyde be^ring No. C.G.No.OZ K/9973 being driven byjhe ciajmant, as a resuit of which, the ciajmant ^^ sustained injuries. The Tribunal, taking into account all the facts that ciaimant sustainecl serious injuries in the motor accident, his hospitalization and expenses incurred during treatment and aiso the evidence of Dr. Akhilesh Yaday A.W.2 who admitted that he had issued disabiiity certificate to the extent of 12% permanent disabiiity, awarded lump-sum amoyntof Rs.80,000/- as compensation to the claj injuries sustained by htm in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directedtheappelianttopayamountofcompensationalongwithinterest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition tl!i the date of actual payment 3. Shri Vipin Tiwari, learned counsei appeanng for the appeN^ submitted that the appeal has been preferred mainiy on two grounds, firstly at the time of accident, the appellant was holding a valid and effective driving licence, and therefore, the insurance company is liabie for payment and secondiy the Tribunal has erred jin awarding tump-sum amount of Rs.80,000/- as compensation, | which is excessive compensation, andtherefore,the compensation may be reduced. 4. Counse! for respondent No.1 is absentjwh Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the insurer, while supporting the impugned order submitted tliat after appreciatingithe evidenceavaiiable on record, the Tribunal has rightiy held the appellant liable for not withholdinga valid and effective driving licence on the date of incident. 5. 1 have heard iearned counsel for the partses at length and have perused the order impugned inciuding record of the Tribunal. 6. in the present case, ! shali first deal withi the evidenoe of SuniE Kumar N.A.VV.1. It is ctear from his evldence thatthe offending vehicie was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and its insurance was effective from 1 5.12.2007 ti!! 14.12.2008 andtheinsurance poiicy was Jssued in favour of Ramdas Yaday i.e. present appeliant. He has atso deposed that the offending vehicle was insured as 'goods carrying commerciai vehicie'. He has further | deposed that R.T.O. concerned had issued licence to its driver entittinglhjm to dri^^ vehicle and non-transport vehictes and the said iicence was not for drjying transport vehictes. He has also deposed that on the date^^^^^ dnver was driving the goods carrying vehicie. it is aiso cljear from the T^-il ''•>;<: •^ i evidence ot N.A.W.2 Saiyyad Rafiullah, who is working asAssistant Grade I! in the Office of R.T.A., Durg that licence has been issued to the appellant - Ramdas Yadav to drive light mofor vjehicle and that iicence was for non-transport vehicle aiso. He has de^osed that the licence hotder can a!so drive llght motor vehicle and private vehicles aiso bu^^^^ cahnot drive goods vehicte and trahsport vehicle; Me admitted that for driving transport vehicle, licence thereof can be;issued for^^^^^ three years and after three years it would be renewed. A perusal of evidence of aboye witnesses makes it clear that the appellant, who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident, was not holding a valid and effective drlving licence. Ex.D.2 is iicence and after a bare perusal of Ex.D.2 also revealed that the appellant/driver was hoider of L.SVI .V. iicence entitling him to drive non-transport vehicles whereas the offending vehicie is goods carrying commercia! vehicle, asis evidentfro Ex.D.1, insurance policy. Thus, the insurance company has fuiiy estabiished that the appellant/driverwas not holding a valid and effective driving licence but was, at the time of accident, holding L.M.V. licenc^ which entitles him to drive only non-transport vehiclesand not transport vehiGle and the offending vehicie is a gpods carryihg commercial vehicle woutd mean that it is a transport vehicle. Jn the matter of Onente/ Insurance Company Ltd. v. Angad Kol & Ors, 2009 ACJ 1411 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is djstinction between light motor vehicle' and 'transport vehicle' and that a transport vehicle may be light transport vehicie, but for the purpose of driving a definite licence is required to be obtained. tn this view of the matter, since the insurance company has fullyestabiished its case, therefore, ithe Tribunal has rightiy exonerated the insurancecompany from its liabilit^to pay compensation. 7. So far as compensation of Rs.80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is concemed, a perusal of Ex.P.27, which is a disabiljty certlficate, would ciearly reveat that the claimant sustained 12% permanent disability. Dr. Akhilesh Yadav A.W.2 has aiso proved the certificate. A perusai of Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.26 would cleariy reveai that the appeliant sustained seriousinjuriesincludingfractureandduetosuchinjurieshewas admitted In Sector-9 Hospital, Bhitai and thereafter was admitted in Swaraj Hospital for a period of 6 days and that he must have spent substantial ampunt for his treatment.It is also clear from the evidence of the ciaimant / respondent No.1 that he was totaily unabte to perform his dutles because K^K^^i^il.^if'l^^gN;^^;^'. w^^. ^ -^ of jmpairment. As a Tesult of injuries^^^^^ respondentNp.1inthemotoraccident,^^^d suffered physical and mental agony during the^^^ after hisdischargefrQmhospitals.Consi Tribunal was justified in awarding tump-sum award 6f Rs.80,000/- as compensation for the injurie^ accident 1 am of the considered opinic^n;^^ awarded bytheTribunaiisneithermeagsrnprbonanza.ltawardedajust and reasonable comperisation looking to the^^^^^^fa^ thepresentcase. 8. The law in relation to awarding compensation in accident cases is welt settled. Under the Motor Vehictes Act, the Tribunals are under obligation to award 'just and reasonable' compensation to the genuine ciaimants after defermining the fad:um of^^^a^^ rashandnegligentactonthepartofdriverpftheoffendingvehide.lthas to be bprne in min<j tliat the cpmpensation is not ^xpected to be windfell for the victim, The statufory^^^^^^^^^^^ p indicate that fhe compensation must be justand it cannot^^b^ tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the ampynt ofcompensation, which should bejustandwhichwoulddependuponthe particular facts and circumstahces, and attending p^ features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the jbackground of '^usf' compensation which is pivotei consideration and requires judicious approach. The expression"just" denotes jequitability, fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. Rlease see j State ofHQryana sncl anather -Vs- JasbirKaur and others, (2003) 7 SCC 484 arid Ne/en C. Rebeflo (Mrs.) andl others -vs- Mahai'ashtra State Transpoit Corporatfonand another, (1999) 1 SCC 90. 9. Forthe foregoing reasons, 1 do notfind|anysubstanceinthe appeai; therefore.the appeal filed by the appeltant is ilable to be and is hereby dismissed. No orderas tocosts. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge