^ , r^-^-v^^T^jv^u^ \--v ^ ^-^.v^A^<A^«<.< c^ IN THBHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.tQNo. 4^ /2010 l¥JS APPBLLANT : [NON-APPLICANT N0.3\ ^^ ^^ ^..- RESPONDENT (Applicant no. 1) (Applicant no. 2) (Applicant no. 3) (Applicant no. 4) (Applicant no. 5) (Non- Applicant no. 1) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, B.O. Everest House 2nd Floor 40-C, Chaurangi Road, Kolakata- 700 071 West Bengal Through: Divisional Manager, Oriental Company, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Smt. Radba Bai ^ ,yavJ_ciw-oOt;^_ .1 . fo- Pan^r^^Manikpuri, aged about 25 years, Gopal S/o. of Panwan Manikpuri, aged about? years, fcw^»'^'\.^ Keshav S/o. ofPdnwan Manikpuri, ageSTabout 13 years, "ci(A)cxrt- v^, Murli S/o. ofPanw^J^. Manikpuri, aged about 1 years, Mahli Manikpur, W/o. Hirau Manikpuri, aged about 55 years ^^^; ^£S^.l Respondent no. 2, 3,4 and area minor through their mother natural guardian Radha Bai Wd/o. \^u3<^ psasween. Manikpuri, aged ^>aU6ut 25 years, All R/o. Village Pathar, P.S. Magarlod, Distt. Dhamtari, (C.G.) 6. Sujeet MandalS/o. Namen Mandal, aged 23 years, R/o. Gram Singraul P.S. Namkum, ^,'sf-- ^^c^^t^^-!<^^} (Non- Applicant no. 2) 7. (Non- Applicant no. 4) (Non- Applicant no. 5) ^ (Non- Applicant no. 6) 8. 10. f\ Mandeep Kaur W/o. Lakhbir Singh Kaur, R/o. Dilip Ganguli Sarani, XOL 108, 131, BT Road, Kolkata, 700 108 (W.B.) Sunil KumarYadav, S/o. Bharatlal Yadav, R/o. Nawapara, (Rajim) P.S. Nawapara, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Rakesh Kumar Jain S/o. Shantilal Jain, R/o. Nawapara, (Rajim) P.S. Nawapara, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) National Insurance Go.. Mobin Mahal, 2nd Floor, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Deleted APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT,1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Hon'ble Shri I.M. Quddusl. J. & Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar iViishra. J. .A.fC)No.958of2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limjted. Versus Smt. Radha Bai and others. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE IVSOTOR VEH'CLE ACT. 1988 Shri A.K. Athaley , counsei for the appellant. Shri Goutam Khetrapaj, counsel for respondent No.IO. ORAL ORDER (14W/2011) Foltowjng oml order of the Court was passed by {. IVI. Quddusi. J. No one appeared for non-applicant No.2 (respondent No. 7 herein) before the Tribunal, therefore the Tribuna! proceeded against the non- applicant No.2 ex-pas'te. No one appeared for respondent No. 7 before this Court also. therefore we also proceed against the respondent No. 7 ex- parte. (2) This appeai has been filed by the Oriental jnsurance Company Limited against the impugned award dated 05/03/2010 of the First Additional Motor Accident Clajms Tribuna!, Raipur (C.G.) passed in Claim Case No. 33/2009 on the iimited ground of ffxjng liabitlty upon it by the M.A.C.T. (3) The brief facts of the case are that on 15/06/2007 at about 3.30 a.m. (night) near Pachpedi Naka Chowk, Tikarapara Raipur truck bearing registration No. C.G.04/J/4582 in v/hich Panna. Pawan Manikpuri, Manoj and Mahesh were sitting was dashed by the truck bearing registration No. WB 23/B/0429 which was driven rashly and negljgently due to which Panna, Pawan Manjkpurl. Manoj and Mahesh received grievous injuries, During treatment Panna and Pawan Manjkpuri died. Dependents of Pawan -^- Manikpuri filed clajm petition claiming compensatjon of Rs.5,97,000/-. Deceased was aged about 26 years and was working as Hamali. (4) Leamed Tribunal has held that the driver of the vehjcle was having a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. The Insurance Company had atso got proved this fact through the statement of the R.T.O. by Issuance of a commission but the Tribunal has fixed the liability upon the Insurance Company on the ground merely by saying a vehicle would not become a heavy vehicle merely by calling it a Tmck, and since the driver namety Sujit Manda! was having a valid and effective drivlng iicence to drive light motor vehicle, therefore it cannot be said that he was not having a valld and efFective drivjng ticence to drive light motor vehicle. Sjnce the registration certificate of the vehicle was not got proved therefore it cannot be said that the vehicle <n question was a heavy goods vehlcte. (5) We have perused the conditions of Insurance Policy which were proved by theAssistant of the office of the Regional Office, Raipur of Oriental Insurance Company as witness No. 2 of non-applicant No. 3. !n the insurance Policy, the weight of the vehtele has been mentioned as exceeding 1200CfKJ!ograms, therefore the vehide in question was having weight exceeding 12000 Kilograms. (6) In the deflnitjon of heavy goods vehlcle given in sub section 16 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act "heavy goods vehide" means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or -a road- roiler the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 ki'ograms; therefore the Insurance Company made the insurance of the vehide bearing regjstration No. WB 23/B/0429 which was bearing more than 12000 KJIograms weight and therefore it was a heavy goods vehicle. In view of thls fact, it is ctear that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving Ijcence to drive a heavy goods vehicle, therefore the finding given by the Tribunal in this regard is totaliy perverse. (7) In view of what has been discussed above, this appea! is liable to be aliowed and is allowed. The liabiljty fixed upon the Insurance Company by the M.A.C.T. is improper and as such the part of the award by which the Ijabjlity has been fixed upon the Insurance Company-Appellant is set-asicJe. WiMiSiiSBSSiSi^y7 f1ii '^/ e^ ^;^'?"'"""''.^ lc """'t 1 ^ .sy ^" ^. w^y".^ -z, The claimants would be entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle. (8) It is pertinent to mention here that we have not consldered the quantum part of the award as the same was not pressed before us. (9) Noorderastocosts. ^^L Sd/- I-M.Quddusi Judge Sd//- PrashantKuniarMishra Judge ^