CO \y CHHATTISGARH MISCAPPEAL. No. “59/OF 2003 ‘ AWELLANT/ , r : INSURER y” VER SUS V‘ RESPONDENTS/ 1. ’ ’“x 6RIVER ; / / RESPONDENT/ ( 9 2. /E6WNER] RESPONDENT/ $3. [CLAIMANT] ‘ National Insurance C0. Ltd. through it’s Branch Manager, Branch Office, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). Raju @ Rajiv Kumar Tiwari S/o Kripa Shankar Tiwari, aged about 30 years, R/o Jhuniapara, Kanker, District Kaanker ’[Chhattisgarh] Baliram Sinha, S/o R]. Sinha Aged about 55 years, Resident of Main Road, Mahurbandpara Kanker, Distt. Kanker [CG] Smt. Maharin Bai, Wd/ o Late Bisambar Ram *Nag, aged about 56 years, R/o Village Kodamant, Alniyapara, .P. S. Kanker, Distt. Kanker [C.G.] Ku. Bharti, D/o Late Bisambar ' Ku.Deepa D/ o Late Bisambar Ram Nag, aged about 14 years, Rakesh, S/o Late Bisambar Ram Nag, aged about 12 years, Respondent No. 4 to 6being minors, through their mother Smt. Maharin Bai, Wd/o Late Bisambar Ram Nag, R/o Vill. Kodamant, Alniyapara, P. S. Kanker, Distt. Kanker [CG] Ram Nag, aged about 16 years, . . . J ,r X @ ‘w ‘ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 V, f .. / 'WW iClaim in Appeal valued at Rs. 3,55,006/ — i kx_£ N claimants under the head of loss of dependency along—with interest @ 60A) per annum nom the date of claim petition. 2. In this appeal the Insurance Company has challenged the a? liability of the insurance Company nxed in the impugned f- awaid on the mound that the driver of the vehicle respondent no.1 was not having valid and en‘ecu've driving license at the time of accident and the Tribunal ought to have held that the odendinz Jeep was registered as Taxi at ,‘ the h’me of accident and the Dn'ver mspondent no.1 was holding license to drive Light Motor Vehicles and was not jpermitted to drive the commercial vehicle as ho did not have :P.S.V. license. §The brief facts of the case acoonding to the claimants are that ion 16.3.2001 at about 9.00 aVm., Vishambar Nag (deceased) falongwith Thameshwar Nag was going hom their village iKodabhat to primary school, Salhebhat for teaching the stuaents. At that time one Jeep bearing Regn.No.C.I.S/ 126 driven by respondent no.1 Rajiv Tiwari rashly and negligently dashed the cycle hum back side on the national highway in front of Govt. Girls High School, Kanker and they fell down. As a result of which, Vishambar Nag sustained serious injuries on his both the legs and head. He was immediately admitted in Govt. Hospital, Kanker for pn'maty treatment n‘om wheie he was Ieferred to Pt. Jawaharlal Medical College, Raipur for better treatment. But during the course of treatment the deceased died on 23.04.2001. The widow and children of the deceased med claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.7,d6,992/- on did‘erent heads. The driver and owner nled written statement denying the claim against them because the oEending Jeep was insured with the Nan'onal Insurance Company, Branch Jagdalpur for a period nom 23.11.2000 to 22.11.2001, therefore, the insurance Company is liable to. pay the compensation and hence they prayed for rejecting the claim against them. The Insumncc Company has also led ths written statement denying th€ claim of the appenants. 5. 1The Tribunal held that that the deceased has died in the accident caused by respondent no.1 who drove the Jeep ‘ No.C.I.S./ 126 rashly and negligently; the deceased was the §Govemment servant, the driver was having valid and ‘ edective driving license and the odending Jeep was not used in breach of the conditions of the Insurance Policy. “a 1 6. We have heaid leanied counsel for the parties and have peizused the neconds of the Tribunal especially the documents Ex.D—3 that is the driving license of the driver respondent no. 1 and Ex.D-4 that is the copy of insurance policy. 7. According to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy the Jeep could be used for private purpose also and when it will have a permit for commemial purpose to load ‘ passengers, no person can drive the vehicle unless he has driving license for driving the commercial vehicle. However, if the vehicle is used for private purpose there is no such prohibition restraining the person to drive it as private vehicle other than the use of transport vehicle for carrying passengers or goods. First of all, before proceeding further, it is necessary to reproduce the conditions mentioned in the insurance policy in respect of the person or class of persons entitled to drive, which reads as under: ' “Any person including the insured provided that the person driving holds an eEective driving license at the time of the accident and is not disqualEed from holding or obtaining such liccnse. Provided also that a person holding an eEective learner’s license may also drive the Vehicle Whon not used for transport of passenger at the iime of the accident and such a person satisfies the Itquirement of rule no.3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. 9. In the above regard, the provisions of section 66(1) of the ‘ Motor Vehicles Act 1988 axe liable to be perused which ‘ l provides that no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place Whether or not such vehicle is actually canying any ‘ passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit gained or counter signed by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorizing him the use of vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used. 10. In the instant case, it has not been proved that the Jeep was having any permit for transport purpose and therefore use of vehicle for private purpose is not prohihited if‘the vehicle is not having permit for nansport purpose. The insurance company has also failed to prove before the MACT concerned that When the accident has taken place, the Jeep was carrying passengers. 11. According to the condition ofinsurance policy itself, a person driving holds an en‘ective driving license at the time of accident and is not disgualined ham holding or obtaining such license and a person holding an en‘ecn've learners i license may also drive the vehicle when nat used for transport of passengers at the time of accident. In that context, if the insurance Company has itself permitted the use of vehicle for non-tansport purpose and allow a ‘dn'ver having license for non—oommercial/non—transport purpose ‘ that is to drive a private vehicle and even permitted a learner who is having learning license to drive the vehicle when the vehicle is not canying any passenger, it is not open for it to depart n‘om that con’dition when the vehicle met with an accident in such circumstances. Therefoxe, it-is not disputed that the driver was having a valid and en'ecn've driving license to driVe the light motor vehicles. V Further it is also not disputed that the Jeep was being driven by Iespondent no.1 who was having valid and eEective license for'dn'ving LMV and the vehicle was not being used for transport purpose in absence of any proof that the on'ending Jeep was not having any permit as transport vehicle and as such it cannot he said that the driver was not having valid and eEective driving license. In view of the above, the ground taken in appeal is not sustainable and the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. !\ Rao " e No order as to costs. Sd/- 1_ i ' Sd/n ‘T‘fA—ah‘ I.M. QUDDUSI Judge i N. K. Agarwal Judge