1:,,L.^^ IN THE mCH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A (C) •>5-( /2009 APPELLANT / The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Divisional QfEce Geetanjali Bhwan Korba (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS <&-*)' * —•' .'^ ....•<. ..ps5rL^ ^••^^<;'^v^ ^1" ...-^^ ^a ^ I. Mongra bai W/0 Ramhaiyalal aged about 35 year 2. Moharsai S/0 Ramhaiyalal aged about 19 years 3. Tiharm Bai D/0 Ramhaiyalal, aged about 17 years (minor) 4. Gedram S/0 Ramhaiyalal /' agedabout 15 years(minor) ,5. Anilkumar S/0 Ramliaiyalal aged about 12 years minor) 6. Tijram S/0 keukaru aged about 70 year Kalabai W/0 Tijrafe aged about 65 year All R/0 village Sakreli Bhatha P/S Baradwar,tahsil sakti district janjgir champa (C.G.) Respondents 3 to 5 are minior fhroughttheir Natural Guardian Mongrabai widow oframhaiya R/o Salcreli bhatha tahsil sakti disfaictjanjgir champa (C.G.) ^^ —z 8 Sunil Kumar S/o Shankarlal ^ Yadav, Caste-Yadav, R/o New Chandiyapara, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa ^(Driver) 9 Smt. Anuja Tavse, W/o Rajnit Tavse, aged about 37 years, R/o 427 Saraswati Scheme No. 59 Abhijesh Nagar Indore (Owner) MISCELLANEOUR APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 Appeal valued at Rs. 4,45,000/- l' Hon'bEe Shri I.M. & Hon'bSe_Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ju. j.A. iCl No.351 of v'l insurance Company Limite< longra Bai others. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 17 OF THE iRT l' s^^y^&i ^is^ Shri njay Mishra, counsei forthe appeilant. Shri JA. Lohani, counsel for respondents No.1 to 7. Shri vimlesh Bajpayee, counsel for the respondent No.9, 01 SER (12/01/20111 i-oiiowin! i. i"i. uuaausi, • the Court was by This appeal has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limitea against the impugned award dated 30/12/2008 of the Additional Motof Accident Claims Tribunai. Sakti (C.G.) passed in Claim Case No. 80/2007 on!y on the ground of liability of the Insurance Company. The brieffacts of the c-ase are t'nat on 14/07/2007 af about 8.30 p.m. Ramhaiya v/as coming from Baradwar to vlllage Sarkeli Bhatha on his bicycle then Metador bearing registration No. M.P.09 K.D./2644 drive" by respondent N6. 8 rashiy and negligently coming from opposite direction dashed the deceased asa result of which he received injuries on hls and other parts of the body. He v/as admitted in Baradwar Hospital from there he was referred to Bilaspur for treatrnent. On the way to Biiaspur he died. Deceased was -about 35 years and was working in M.P. State M'ning C-orporation. His monthly salary was Rs.5,000/- month. The claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.11,45.000/-. per 3. Betore tne Tr No.2 was owner of tl Insurance Company. ibunal non-applicant No. 1 was drlver, non-applicant he vehicle and non-applicant No. 3 v/as the appeilant- Non-applicant No. 1 himseif appeared in fhe wttness -2,- ff' ;y: box since the interest of the non-applicants was the same, therefore if non- applicant is appearing in the v/itness box and proving some fact successfully then to our opinion it not be proved by the Insurance Company other "on-app'icant being the common jnterest. 4. Non-appl'cant No. 1 i.e. driver of the vehicis has stated that he having a drMng licence to drive the iight motor vehicle, but there is an endorsement in his a'riving Hcence that it was for the purpose of non- transport vehicle which is document NA 2, therefore the driving iicence of the driver of the vehicte has been exhibited and proved by the driver himself in whose favour the licence was issued. In fact ths driving ficsnce in original has been filed by the driver and the driving licence was effectlve from 18/07,'2002 to 17/07/2021: It is ror iight motor yehic!e and non-transport vehicie only. 5. In Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act it is provided that a drivin llcence issued or renev/ed under Motor Vehicles Act in case of licence to drive a transport vehide be effsctive for a period of three years and in case of any other licence for 20 years or tli! he attams the age of 50 years whichever is eariier and after 50 years it is to be issued or renewed for five years every" tirne. 6. In the matter of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Rahemansha Fakir and another, reported In (2008} 8 SCC 253, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus in paragraph 10 as under:- "Section 10 of the Act provides for classes of the driving iicence. D'fferent olasses of vehicte have been defined in Sifferent provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. The "transport vehicia" is defined in Section 2(47) of tha Act to mean a public ser/lce veiiicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a privats sen/ice vehicie. We have noticed hereinbefore the proyisions of sub-seciion (4) of Seclion 41. We have aiso noticed the notification issued by the Central Govemment in this behaif. The said notlfieation clearly posiuiatos that a three- wheeied vehicle for transport of passengers or goods comes within the purvie*A' of C-lass 5 of the Table appended, thereto. The iicence granted in favour of the said SaJim Amadbhai goes to siiow that the same was granted for a vehicle other than the transport vehicle. It was valid from 13-5-2004 to 12-5-2024. Section 14(2)(a) provldes that a drivlng iicsnce issued or renewed under the Act shall, in case of a lincence to drive a transport vehicle wi!i be effective for a period of three years In the case of any other vehicie it can be issued or ^- renewed for a period of 20 years from the date of issuance or renewal. The fact Shat the iicence was granied for a period of 20 years, ti'ius, clearly shows that Salim Amadbhai, driver of the vehicle, was not aranted a valid drivina iicence for driving a transport vehicie." 7. In visw of the above, it is proved that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and as such we allow this nppeal and exonerate the Insurance Company from its iability and set-aside the award to thaf extent. Only the quantum as well as the find'ng with regard to award of compensation shall remai" intact, however the finding contrary to the above is set-aslde and it is he!d that the owner of the s/ehicie is liable to pay the compensation. !f any' compensatlon has been paid by the Insurance Company the same rnay be realized from the owner ofthe vehicle. ————--2_ Sd'- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mis Judge '</?-