\--,3.-4;M 1\ ^ Respondents Claimants HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Miscellaneous Appeal (Cl No.1409 of 2007 Appellant The New India Assurance Company Insurer Limited, through-Divisional Manager, the New India Assurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, 2 Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Opposite Rajeev Plaza, Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.) versus 1. Smt. Meena Jasuja, aged 27 years, W/o Anil Jasuja. 2. Anil Jasuja, aged about 31 years, son of Sapharmal Jasuja. Both resident of Gali No.7, Mutha Nagar, Telibandhi, Post Ravigram, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Driver 3. Basant Kumar Sahu, aged 28 years, Son of Ajit Kumar Sahu, R/o Subhasha Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur Owner 4. M/s Sachdev New P.T. College, through Manager Director, H-3, Daga Building, Motibag Chowk, Civil Line, Raipur, Telibandha, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 ofthe IVIotorVehicles Act, 1988. Present: Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for the appellant. Respondents No.1 & 2 are absent. Smt. Fouzia Mirza, counsel for respondents No.3 & 4. ORAL OR D E R (Passed on this 25th day ofJanuary, 2008) Heard finally. (2) In this appeal arising out of an award dated 09-10-2007 passed by the Twelveth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Fast Tract Court), Raipur (henceforth "the MACT) in Claim Case No.34 of 2007, the short question which arises for determination is whether the learned MACT erred in fastening V !y liabiSity on the appeilanVinsurance company tp pay compensatipn as the respondent No.S/driver did hot possess a valid driving licence to drive a passenger carrying commereial vehicle. (3) .Admlttedly, the respondentNo.S/driverpossessed a.1icence only to drive light motor vehicle (for short "LMV") and there was no endorsement on licence Ex.D-1 authorizing himto drive a transportvehicleor a passenger carrying commercial vehicie. It is also not disputed that that the offending bus i.e., Mini Bus bearing Registration No.C.G.-04/D/4509 (henceforth "the Minibus") was insured as a passengercarrying commercial vehicle under policy Ex.D-2 on the date of the accident.Admitledly,pn22|-11-2006 at about 1.30 P.M., due to rash and negligent driving of Minibus by the respondent No.3, Rpunak Jasuja, aged about 1 & % years got crushed underneath the Minibus and died. The tribunai awarded compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- jointly and severally against the appellant and the respondents No.3 & 4. (4) Under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth the Act, 1988) , noperson shall drive a transportvehicie (other than a motorcabor motor cycle) hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75 unless his driving licence specificaliy entitles him to do so. After the amendment incorporated in section 10-of the Act, 1988 with effect from 14-11-1995, a driving |icence shall also be expressed as entiBing the holder to drive a motor yehlcie of one or more of the foilowing \ ' . • '. ... '\ . classes, namely:- ~ ; . • (a) Motorcyclewithoutgear; , ^ (b) Motorcycle.with gear; ' ' (e) Invalid carriage; - (d) Light motor vehicle; . "Sl li2iiR -l ;.:,^;-:..:^ (e) Transport vehicle; (fl Road-roller; (g) IVIotorvehicleofaspecifieddescription. (5) Under sub-section 47 of Section 2 of the Aet, 1988, "transport vehiele" means a pubiic ser»'icevehscl®,a goods carriage, an educational institutlon bus or a private service vehicle. Thus, the educational institution bus fal!s under the category of transport vehicle. Admittedly, the said vehicie was also •<~ insured by the owner as a passenger carrying commercial vehicie. It was therefore necessan/ that the driver of the said Minibus ouflht to have been authorized by an endorsement on his iicence to drive a transportvehicle or in . this case, a passenger carrying commercial vehicle. (6) in National insurance Co. Ltd. vs. ACJ 1336, the Apex Court has held that in a case ofthis nature, the ov»'nerof a vehicte cannot contend that he has no liability to verify the fact as to whether the driver of the vehicle possessed a valid licence or not. In Orientai Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Syed lbrahim& Others, 2007 A!R SCW S197, the Apex Court while considering a case in which on the date of accident, a 7 year oid chitd died due to an accident wlth a Lorry, the driver was authorized only to drive Light Motor Vehicle, the view taken by the High Court that the owner was not expected to know as to what fry'pe of iicence the driver 1 - ' ^ possessed, was not accepted by the Apex Court and it was held that appeliant/insurer was not liable to indemnify the award. (7) !n New india Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Prabhu Lal, 2007 7677, while exonerating the insurance company from liabiiity to pay compensation, the Apex Court placed reliance on a decision rendered by i{ in '! &- Chandra Prakash Saxena (SLP No.17794 of 2004) in which the vehicle ihvoived in accident was a Jeep Commander made by Mahindra & Mahindra, a passenger carrying commereial vehicle and the driver was holding a licence only to drive Light Motor Vehicle. It was held that the driver was not authorized to piy the vehicie in question, and therefore, the insurance company could not be held liab!e to pay compensation. (8) Ptecing implicit reliance on Orientai Snsurance Co. Ltd. vs. Syed Ibrahim & Others, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Prabhu Lal and Chandra Prakash Saxena (SLP No.17794 of 2004) (Supra), i am of the considered opinion that since in the present case also the vehicle in question was a Mahindra & Mahindra Mini Bus insured as a passenger carryini commercial vehicle and fell irrto the category of transport vehicle being a sducationa! institution bus, the appellant/insurance companywas not liable to indemnify the award as the driver was. holding a ticence oniy to drive LMV and there was no authorization on his licence to drive a passenger carrying commercial vehicie or a transport vehicle. (9) In the result, the appeai is allowed. It is held that ths appellant/insurance company is not liable to pay compensation which shall be recovered jointly and severaliy from the respondents No.3 & 4. Sd/- DaipRaosahebDeshDiukh Judge