"^...... :.^ ^-^:. , ^_^ ^ r. ^ c^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C)No.- li^3 /2010 Si'^ly jl^C';' I^VJ^^i APPELLANT ^A^--' ...^^+':. ••••••.,5'f^-- .^^ ^^" THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY. LIMITED, THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISION NUMBER- 1, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., JAIL ROAD RAIPUR, ( C.G.) (INSURER OF MAHINDRA PICKUP, NUMBER C.G. 04 J.-6994) Vrs. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS :- 1. MAMTA BAI WIDOW OF BASANT NISHAD^GE 25 YRS., 2. ABHAY KUMAR S/0 LATE BASANT KUMARAGE 2 YRS. 3. BISRU S/0 LATE RAMDAYAL NISHAD, AGE 62 YRS. 4. PANCH BAI W/0 BISRU NISHAD, AGE 60 YRS. 5. VINOD KUMAR S/0 BISRU RAM NISHAD,AGE21YRS. 6. DEEPAK KUMAR S/0 BISRU RAM NISHAD,AGE8YRS. RESPODENT N0.- 2 THROUGFI GUARDIAN MOTHER MAMTA NISHAD AND MINOR RESPONDENT N0. 6 THROUGH GUARDIAN FATHER BISRU RAM, ALL RESIDENT VILLAGE- KHATTI, P.0. PARSADA, THANA ABHANPUR, DISTRICT - RAIPUR (C.G.), PRESENT ADDRESS -NEW RAJENDRA NAGAR, RAIPUR, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT RAIPUR (C.G.) RESPONDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS:- 7. VIJAY KUMAR ALIAS CHINTU S/0 PYARELAL BHATRE, RESIDENT, DR. RAJENDRA NAGAR, RAIPUR, INFRONT OF OM SAI TRAVELS, THANA CIVIL ..2.. ..!.. LINE, RAIPUR, TEHSILAND DISTRICT -RAIPUR C.G. (DRIVER OF MAHINDRA PICKUP NUMBER C.G. 04 J.-6994) 8. MAHESH KUMAR S/0 LATE HARDU LAL, BISEN, RESIDENT RAIPURA, BEHIND OF RAIPUR SHIVAM VIDYAPITH, SATYAK VIHAR COLONY, THANA D.D. NAGAR, RAIPUR, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT- RAIPUR C.G. (OWNER OF MAHINDRA PICKUP NUMBER C.G. 04 J.-6994) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 '6 HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSOARH. BILA8PUR DB: HON»BLBI.M. QUDDU8I & HOITBLB PRA8HANT KUMAR MI8HRA, JJ, M. A(Cl No.1183 OF 2010 Vs. MISC. APPBAL U/8 173 OF THB MOTOR VBHICLES ACT, 1988 APPBARANCB: Mr.Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for the appellaiit None for the respondents. ORDBR (ORALI (01.02.201.1) Per LM. QUDD8SI. J. 1. List is beiag revised. Case is ^gaia catled cmt Mr. Sudfair Agrawal, Advocate appeara on behajf of fhe appeUant aiid no one appears on behalf of fhe claiQiaats/rcspondents 1 to 6 aad the owxier/respondent no,8 despite sewice of notice, Therefore, fhe matter is heard finaUy. 2. This appeal has been filed by fhe lasurance Compaay e^aiast fhe award dated 04.08.2010 passed by II AddL Motor Accident Claims Tribiinal, Raipiir (C.G) m Claiai Case No. 19/2009 on fhe ground tfaat the driver of the ofifending vehicle was not haviag a vaUd aad efifective drivio^g Ucense, fherefore, tfae insurer of fhat vehicle, appellant herem, is not liable to pay compensation under fhe policy. 3. Brief facts of the case as per fhe version ofthe claiiaaats are fhat ou 10.09.2007 deceased Basaat Kiimar Nishad was APPBLLANT The Qrieatal Iiaaw^mce Compaxiy Vd. RBSPONDBNTS Mamta Bai and others ^- traveUag m Mahiadra Hck-up bearing Regii,No.04-J/6994, At about 1.55 p.m., the said vehicle which was bemg diivea by non-appUcant no. 1 ia a rash aad negUgeat manaier, met wifh accident, as a result ofwhicli BasaatKumar died. At the tiine ofaccident, fhe deceased was a^ed about 29 years and was workfcag as helper in the said vehicle esaiimg Rs.40,000/- per anniim. The claimaats beiag depeiideiits/ legal representatives of the deceased jBled an appUcatioii before fhe Tribunal u/s 163-A of fhe Motor Vefaicles Act, claimmg compensation to che tiuie of Rs,4,97,000/- on various heads, 4. The learaed Tribunal, on appraisal of evideBoe led, material placed on record aad the submissioiis inade by fhe parties, has held that that fhere was no breach oftenxis & coaditioiis of fhe poUcy and has awaxded Rs.4,47,000/- as compensation which fhe clamiacite arc entitled firom the xioa- appUcaats ie., driver, owner axid Insiiraace compaay. S. Mr. Agarwal, learaed coiinsel for the appellaQt-Insui^iice Company submits that driver of fhe oflFendi&g vdhicle was not aufhorized to drive it as he w^^ haviiig driving Ucease to drive niotorcycle as also private Ught motor vehicle aad not the goods carriage or transport vehicle. He further submits fhat apart from breach ofinsuraace policy oonditions in fhe iastaiit case, violation of provisions of Section 14 of the Act, 1988 is also there and therefore, fhe Tribuual has erred ia law in fastening Uabilily on the insurance company to pay compeasation to the claiinants, He placed reHaace on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reiidercd in the matter of / ^y^,^ ^-"^ ":%. .1 4 ' 1. g~ ^-^m^. i ^ Y^:^i&^.. B '%...^'^ "^^k^y New India Asawrance Co. Itd. Vs. Roshanben RRlicaaaaarIia Fakir and another rcported in 2008 (3) T.A.C. 20 (8C). We have heard learaed counsel for the appeUaxit aad have also gone fhrough fhe rccords offhe Tribunal. Section 14 of fhe Act, 1988 is relevaiit herc aiid quoted below:- *l4. Currency of Ucences to Arlve motor vcditcles.- (1) A leamer^s Ucence issued iinder fhis Act shaU, subject to the other pmvisions of fhis Act, be effective for a period of SK monfhs fironi fhe date ofissue ofUcence, (2) A driviag Ucence issued or renewed imder this Act shaU,- (s^ WL fhe case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be efifective for a period offfarce years: Rrovided fhat ia ftie case of Ucence to drive a taraasport vehicle canyiag goods of daagexous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one year and renewal thereof shall be subject to fhie condition fhat fhe driver imdergoes one day refiTesher course offhe prescribed syBabus; and (b) ia case ofaay ofher Ucence,- (i) if ihe person obtamiag fhe licence, eifher originally or on renewal fhereof, has not attaiaed fhe age of (fifty years) on fhe date of issue or, as fhe case may be, rciiewal thereof- (A) be effective for a period of twexity years finojai fhe date of such issue or rcnewal; or (B) iiatil fhe date on which such person attaias fhe oge of (Fifiy Yeare), (ii) XX5000QCXX Provided that every drivmg licence shaU., notwitihstaiidmg its expixy uader tfais sufo- section continue to be efiTective for a period of fhirty days fix>m such expiry,^ 8. In fhe matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V».Aagad Kol & others reported m (2009) 11 SCC 386 the Honlale Supreme Court has held fhus: <<Although fhe defiLaition of <Ught motor vehicle' brmgs withm its umbrage bofh <(tonaasport vehiete" or "omnibus^, iadisputably, a distinction betvwexi aa efifective driviag Ucence granted for transport vehicle aiid passenger xaotor vehicle exists. The distmctioai betweexi ""b.. ^s'^. ^ ! "iy./ ^^y' a light motor vehicle' aad a 'teansport vehicle' is evident A traasport vehfcle rn.sy be a I^ht motor vefaicle b^it for fhe purpose of driviag the same, a distinct Uceiice is requircd to be obtaiaed. The distinctioii between a "teaasport vehicle^ aad a "passenger vehicle" can also be noticed finom Section 14 of the Act Section 14 (2) piovides for duration ofa period offhree years in case of aa effective driviag Uceiice to drive a <transport vehicle', whereas ia case of aay ofher licence, it inay reaiiaiii effective for a period oftwenty years» Thus, tt is evideait fhat a traasport vehicle may be a light motor veldcle but for fhe piirpose ofdriviag fhe same, a distiaict Ucence is required to be obtamed,,. „.^ 9. In fhe case ofNew Indla Assiirance C!o<» Ltd< V»,Prablttt Lal reported in 2008 (1) SCC696 it was held fhus:- a30, Now, it is fhe case of fhe Insurance Ctompaoy that fhe vehicle of the compladnaat which Biet wifh an accident was a "teaasport veliicle". It was submitted that fhe iasured vehicle was a <(goods carriage^ and was fhus a "traasport vehicle". The vehicle w^ driven by Raia Naram, who was aufhorized to drive light niotor vehicle and not a transport vehicle. Smce the driver had no licence to drive transport vehicle ifii absence of necessaiy endorsemeat in his licence to fhat effect, he could not have driven Tata 709 axid when that vehicle met wifh an accident^ fhe Insurance Compaay could not be made liable to pay coinpensation. 10. In the matter of Roshanben Rcthemansha FaJar (supra) the Honyble Supreme Court repeUiag fhe subinission of learaed counsel for fhe respondent fhat it did not matter as to whefher fhe driviag Ucence issued for auto rickshaw was adapted for cwcryisig passengers or goods has lield that fhe driver was not holdiag aa effective dnviag Ucence to drive auto nekshaw deUvery van. ^- ^:-. . •- 'r' 't' 11. In fhe iastaat case^ fhe Insuraiice Company has examiaed Rajesh Kumar Bhargav, License Clerk of fhe office Regional Transport Officer, Raipur as N.A,W.3. He has produced fhe register maintained for 01.07.2004 to 14.02.2005 and has proved that fhe driver of the vehicle namely Vijay Kttmar Bhatre was issued driving license No.V/6735/R-2005 to drive Motorcycle aad Light Motor Vehicles (LMV) aad it would be efiTective fix>m 25.01.2001 to 24.01.2025 that is for a period of20 years, 12. The Tribunal has held fhat vehicle in question oexmes imider fhe category of Light Motor Vehicle as it was less fhaa fhe weight of 7500 Kgs., iacluding fhe loadtog capacity and thought it was a transport vehicle, but respondent xio.T who was haviag a driving licease to drive fhe Light Motor Veliiele is also entitled to drive the said teaasport vehicle asit coiiies uiider fhe category of I^ht motor vehicle, As laid down by fhe Apex Court ia Angad Kol case (Supra), a tran.sport vehicle iiiay be a Ught m.otor vehicle but for the purpose of driving fhe same, a distinct Ucence is required to be obtaiaed. Thercforc, fhe said fiading of the Tribuiial coxmot be atlowed to stand, 13. In view of what has been discussed above, we allaw this appeal and hold fhat fhe appeUant-Iiisuraace Conipany is not liable to pay compensation and tfaat part of fhe impugned award is faereby set-aside. We fiirther dlrect fhat tfae Uabflity to pay the compensation involved ia fhe awaxd te of fhe owiier of fhe offexidiag vehicle. In case any amount deposited by fhe appellaiit-Insiirance Conipaiiy has beea y- withdrawn by the claimants in fuU or in part, it wiU be open for it to recover the same firom fhe owner of the vehicle* However, if fhe amoiiat, so deposited, has not yet been wifhdrawn, the appellaiit shaU be attowed to wiffadraw the sarne. Rest ofthe conditions aad findings ofimpiigned awaixi are hereby confirmed. It is hereby clarified fhat claimaxits are finee to execute ffae award against fhe owner of the vehicle* Sd/- I.M.Quddusl Judge Sd//- P'-ashan^un.arMishr. >e Rao