(^^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATTISGARH ^ ^ Benct MISC. APPEAL ( C ) N0. l 07 OFfi6^)^0 ll l^»^ APPELLANT/ N^N.APPLICANT N0.2/ /bWNER A-a-.!t*"«'^"^A3-"" ^s©^-"^ciA-\N ^®A-"" RESPONDENT/ CLAIMANTNO.l RESPONDENT/ ^APPLICANT/ / CLAIMANT N0.2 ^ESPONDENT/ /KON-APPLICANT NQ.l/ DRIVER HBSPONDENT/ ifON-APPLICANT N0.3/ INSURER ^'Indrakumar, S/o Chainsingh ^ Sahu, aged about %S years, R/o village Josilmati, Police Station Gendatola, Tahsil 8& District Rajnandgaon (CG). Versus ^- ^helan Ram Sahu, S/o Kriparam Sahu, aged about 34 years. ^ 2. Sevati Bai, W/o Khelan Ram Sahu, aged about 32 years. 3. Both resident of village Salik Jitiya, Police Station Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG). Ashwini Kumar, S/o Bharat Ram Sonwani, aged about 24 years, R/o village Dehan, Post Jadutola, Police Station Gendatola, District Rajnandgaon (CG). 4^ Bajaj Alliance General ^*^ Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Office, Shivmohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri Raipur, District Raipur (CG). MEMO OF MISC. APPEAI^UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MQTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 w^" Appeal valued at Rs. 1,33,00.0/- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Misc. Apoeal (Ct No. 107 of 2011 APPELLANT Non-applicant No.2/ OWNER RESPONDENTS Indrakumar VERSUS Khelan Ram Sahu and others 1 ^<» APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 S.B.: HON'BLE SHRI N.K.AGARWAL.^J. Present: Shri B.D.Guru with Shri Rajendra Tripathi for the appellant. Shri Ashok Patil appears on behalf of Shri Anand Shukla for respondents No.l and 2. Shri N.K.Vyas appears on behalf o^ Shri M.K.Bhaduri for respondent No.3. Shri S.S.Rajput with Shri Anant Bajpai for respondent No.4 ORAL ORDER (Passedon 17.08.2011) At the outset, Shri Ashok Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Anand Shukla for respondents No.l & 2/claimants submits that he does not want to press the cross-appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of the C.P.C. for enhancement of compensatlon. 2. Cross-appeal filed by respondents No.l & 2/claimants is dismissed as not pressed. i. 3. With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is heard'finally. 4. This is owner's appeal against the aw^rd dated 07th August, 2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon in claim case No.39/2008. ^U9puods9j joj SuuB^ddB psunoo p9ujB9^ 'redfeg ^UBUV uqg q^TM ^ndfey q§mg mqo^g uqg 'pu-eq JQ^O oq^ UQ -g / •" ; •uop-esu^dujoo X^d o^ X^niqBH S^T mojj XuBduioo ^ou-ejnsuT oq^ §UpBJ9UbX9 UT JOJJ9 UT U^HBJ SBq ^Bunquj, p9UJB9j oq^ PUB f^ouoon §UTAUp 9Ap39JJ9 pUB PJI^A §UTppq SBM <9JOJ9J9q^ PUB <SmBJ§On^ OOQ'Z U^L[^ SS9I SBM ^I3R9A 9q; jo 4q§pM ssoj§ sq^ ^u^ppo^ JO 9mp 9q^ ;B 90U93H •A*W^ §UTPIOL[ SBM QTOiqsA §uipu9jjo sq^ jo jQAup 9L[^ ^I^iqns p^noM s^u-BHQddB ^q^ joj Suu'e^dd'e psunoo pQuj-e^ <TL[:lBduJ/ BJpu^fe^ uqg q^TM §uop njno-Q-g uqg *Z •uoi^Bsu^dmoo jo ^u^mXBd JGJ ^iqB^ ^piqsA Smpu^jjo sq^ jo j^App pua JQUMO •Q-T s^uB^pddB sq^ guippq s^UBmrep sq^ jo JHOABJ UT uop^suodmoo jo ^unoma pres^jojB oq^ popjBMB pua p^ss^ssa fuopBsuoduioo Xad o^ /4THq"BH S^T mojj Au-Bdiuoo oouBjnsui ^q^ p9^BJ9uox9 PUB ^usppOB JO 9m? ^V^ V3 QOUOOT^ §.L(IAUp 9Ap09JJ9 pUB PHBA §UTSS9SSOd ^OU SBM 9piqQA §UTpU9JJO 9q;JO J9AUp '8£S5/P/^0 *0'0'°N uoppj^si§9j guu^sq ^QS IQ V1VJ, sioTqsA Suipusjjo sq^ jo jSAUp sq^ jo guiAup ^U9§n§OUpUB qSBJ O^ 9Up p^j^nooo paq ^usppo-B o-q^ ^PT^q ^T ^ojsq P^\ 90U9pTA9 9L[^ JO XupnjOS 980? B UO ^BUUqUJ, pQUJ-BQ^ 9qj, •9 c •^UQmA^d ^n^o-e s^i np uopBonddB JO ^VQR 9L[^ UJOJJ UinUU-B J9d o/o9 JO 9^J 9L[:t :tB ^SQJQ^UT L[^TM §UOIB -/ooo'es'i'sy jo ns ^o^ ^ pspj.vwe s^q ^unquj, psuj^si sq^ '(joy ^^, L[^JOj90U9q) ^oy SQpTq^A JO^OIAI oq^ jo 99-[ uopo^g j^pun uop^oTjddB mrep §uny Xq 800S*ZO'2/S p^V3p ^uQppOB 9^ UT SJBQX £-[ ;noqB p9§^ 'nq'eg B^TUV 'n^ - p9s^909p jo s^u^jBd o^un^jojun 9L[; Xq psujrep ~/000<0£<6T*SH J° uopBsu^dmoo ^sure§B sy 'S 9/\ t^ I! €^:.^-.,. 't ^ •^^•'"'^-^ f. '^.::^&h H "•"^'•"-l e, :'^ ^'"' ^" ^.•^y .^^^ y..:.^^ "^. K': "• -•: f €.—?"- : <* No.4/insurance company would submit: the offending vehicle was goods carrying vehicle; licence was issued for a period of 20 years whereas the licence for transport vehicle cannot be issued for a period more than 3 years, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated respondent/insurance cbmpany from its liability to pay compensation and the award of the learned Tribunal needs no interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 10, It is not disputed by Shri B.D.Guru, learned counsel for the appellant that the vehicle was goods carrying vehicle; it is also not in dispute that the driver of the offeiiding vehicle was holding Light Motor Vehicle licence on the date of accident, which was issued to him for a period 20 years. The period of licence would again suggest that the licence was non-transport vehicle licence. The Apex Curt in case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. -v- Angad Kol and Ors. Reported in JT 2009 (2) 587 held in para 15, 16, 17 and 18 as under:- 15. Licence having been granted for a period of 20 years, a presumption, therefore, arises that it was meantfor the purpose of a vehicle other than a transport vehicle. . 16. Had the driving licence had been granted for transport uehicle, the tenure thereof could not have exceededto three years. In National Insurdnce Co. Ltd. V. Annappa Irappa Nesaria [JT 2008 (1) SC 617; 2008 (3) SCC 464], this Court noticed the :-^^::;^.'^"^: ;,..,.^^\^ ^ aforementioned development in the matter of grant of licence to a transport vehicle stating that the same became effective from 28-3-2001 in the following terms: "20. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that "transport vehicle" has now been substituted for "medium goods vehicle" and "heauy goods vehicle". The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time to cover both <clight passenger carriage vehicle" and <clight goods carriage vehicle>\ A driver who had a valid licence to driue a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well. 21. the amendments carried out in the Rules having a prospective'operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law. v 17. The effect ofthe different terms oflicences granted in terms of the prouisions of Section 2(14) and 2(47) has a/so been noticed by this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Prabhu Lal [JT 2007(13)SC 246; 2008 (1) SCC 696/, stated: "30. Now, it is the case ofthe-Insurance Company that the vehicle of the complainant which met with an accident was a (ctransport vehicle?\ It was submitted that the insured vehicle was a "goods carriage'3 and was thus a cctransport vehicle)\ The vehicle was driven by Ram Narain, who was authorized to drive light motor vehicle and not a transport vehicle. Since the driver had no licence to drive transport vehicle in absence of necessary endorsement in His licence to/that effect, he could not have driven Tata 709 and when that vehicle met with an accident, the Insurance Company could not be made Hable to pay compensation. XXX XXX XXX 37. The argument of the Insurance Company is that at the time of accident, Ram Narayan had no valid and effective licence to drive Tata 709. Indisputably, Ram Narain was having a licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, referring to various provisions of the Act submitted that if a person is having licence to drive Ught motor vehicle, he can not drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do (Section 3).Clauses (14), (21), (28) and (47) of Section 2 make it clear that if a. vehicle is "light motor vehicle", but falls under the category of transport vehicle, the driving licence has to be duly endorsed under Section 3 ofthe Act. Ifit is not done, aperson holding driving Hcence to ply light motor vehicle cannotply transport vehicle. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, Ram Narain was having licence to drive light motor vehicle. The licence was not endorsed as required and hence, he could not have driven Tata 709 ih absence of requisite endorsement and the Insurance Company could not be held liable. 38. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. We also find that the District Forum considered the question in its proper perspective and held that the vehicle driven by Ram Narain was covered by the category of transport vehic^ under Clause (47) of Section 2 of the Act. Section 3, therefbre, required the driver to have an endorsement which would entitle him to ply such vehicle. It is not even the case of the complainant that there was such endorsement and Ram Narain was allowed to ply transport vehicle. On the contrary, the case of the complainant was that it was Mohd. Julfikar who was driving the vehicle. To us, therefore, the District Forum was right in holding that Ram Narain could not have driven the vehicle in question. The Court distinguished its earlier judgment in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance [JT 1999 (6).SC 423 ; 1999 (6) SCC 620 stating : <(41. in our Judgment, Ashok Gangadhar did not lay down that the driver holding licence to drive a light motor eehicle need not have an endorsement fo drive transport vehicle and yet he can drive such vehicle. It was on the peculiar facts of the case, as the Insurance Company neither pleaded nor proved that the vehicle was transport vehicle by placing on record the permit issued by the Transport Authority that the Insurance Company was heldliable." However, in this case, the finding offact arrived at that the vehicle in question was not proved to be a goods vehicle is not correct The Regional Transport Officer in his deposition, stated that the vehicle in question was a goods vehicle. However, in this case, the finding of fact arrived at that the vehicle in question was not proved to be a goods uehicle is not correct. The Regional Transport Officer, in his deposition, stat/d that the uehicle in question was a goods vehicle. 11. 18. From the discussions made hereinbefore, it is thus, evident that it is proved that respondent No. 6 did not hold a valid and effective driving Ucence for driving a goods vehicle. Breach of conditions of the Insurance is, therefore, apparent on the face of the records." In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and another, 2008 ACJ 2161, the Apex Court held that licence having been granted for a period of twenty years, a presumption, therefore, arises that it was meant for the purpose of a vehicle other than a transport vehicle. 12. In view of the above referfed 41cta of Supreme Court, it is clear that the driver of the offending vehicle TATA DI 207 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same in breach of conditions of the policy, and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. 13. For the foregoing, the appeal being devoid of merit substance fails and is dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge