^^f IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR rCHHATTISGARHI MISC.APPEAL N0.7l<OOF 2006 APPELLANT <INSURANCE r RESPONDENTS ,'CLAIMANTS -^' 2^' QWNER < DRIVER Oriental Insurance Com. Ltd. through its Braiich Manager, Itwari Bazar, RAIGARH (CG). VBRSUS 1. Vedram Dewangan s/o late Chamra, aged 55 years. <^2. Smt. Susheela Devi w/o '/ Vedram Dewangan, aged 50 years. ^3. Ku. Rohini d/o Vedram Dewangan, aged 25 years . ^? ,4. Ku. Champa D/o Vedram Dewangan, aged 18 years. (All r/o Koshtapara, Palace Road, RAIGARH(CG) 5. Mukund Dewangan s/o Govind Ram, r/o Palace Road, RAIGARH (CG). ,6. Madan s/o Kuldhar Mehar r/o Hameerpur, P.S. Tamnar, Dist. RAIGARH (CG). APPBAL U/S 173 OF MOTOR^yEHICLES ACT AGAINST THB AWARD/ORDER DATBD ^1-12-2005 PASSED BY THE ^CLMMS TRIBUNAL. RAIGARH IN C.T. N0^21/2004 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. No. 940 of 2006 Appellant Oriental Insurance Com. Ltd. Versus Respondents Vedram Dewangan & others APPEAL UNDER SECTLON 173^0F THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I. M. Quddusi 8& Hont>le Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal, JJ -Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S. K. Tiwari, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 4. None for the respondents No. 5 and 6. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 24th day of Febmary, 2011 ) Perl. M. Quddusi,J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 21.12.2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh in Claim Case No. 21/2004, challenging the liability to pay the amount of compensation, fbced by the Claims Tribunal upon it. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the lower Court record as well as the findings given in the impugned award. 3. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 20.8.2004 at about 4.30 a.m. in the morning deceased Tularam was going in the Metadoor - 407, bearing registration No. C.G. 12 ZB-0239, from village Gare, Police Station - Tamnar, Raigarh to Dhonrabhanta Bazar. At that time due to rash and negligent driving by the non-applicanf No.2 (Madan Mehar) the vehicle turned turtle, as a result of which Tularam received various injuries and succumbed to those injuries. The matter was reported to the police station Tamnar, I . • |»in IIB^ wherein the First Information Report was lodged and the offence was registered at Crime No. 117/2004 under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The claimants, being legal heirs of deceased Tularam filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- under various heads. Learned Tribunal, having regard to the facts and evidence passed the impugned award, directing the non-applicants to pay a total sum of Rs. 4,23,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annumw.e.f. 28.9.2004, excluding the amount of the interim award. The witness No.l of the Insurance Company namely Gyandeo Bhoi, who was U.D.C. (Assistant Grade-II) in the R.T.O. Office Raigarh, had come in the witness box and had proved that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a LMV licence for private purpose and he was issued the driving licence w.e.f. 3.6.1999 to the year 2009 i.e. for ten years. Besides this, the insurance policy of the vehicle in question shows that it was a policy covering the liability for zone (C? goods carrying commercial vehicle, other than three wheelers, as it is titled as "Liabilily Only Policy for Zone C Goods Carrying Comm. Vehicle (Other than 3 wh)M. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the driver of the vehicle in question was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the 'goods carrying commercial vehicle' as the same was a transport vehicle for which the licence for three years is issued under Section 14(2) of the Act, 1988. In the matter of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and another, reported in (2008) -v Ly^||N<N^.. 8. 9. 0) 8 SCC 253, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 10 has held as under : "Section 10 of the Act provides for classes of the driving licence. Different classes of vehicle have been defined in different provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. The "transport vehicle" is defined in Section 2(47) of the Act to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. We have noticed hereinbefore the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 41. We have also noticed the notification issued by the Central Government in this behalf. The said notification clearly postulates that a three - wheeled vehicle for transport of passengers or goods comes within the purview of Class 5 of the Table appended thereto. The licence granted in favour of the said Salim Amadbhai goes to show that the same was granted for a vehicle other than the transport vehicle. It was valid from 13-5-2005 to 12-5-2024. Section 14(2)(a) provides that a driving licence issued or renewed under the Act shall, in case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle will be effective for a period of three years whereas in the case of any other vehicle it can be issued or renewed for a period of 20 years from the date of issuance or renewal. The fact that the licence was granted for a period of 20 years, thus, clearly shows that Salim Amadbhai, driver of the vehiclQ, was not granted a valid driving licence for driving a transport vehicle.?? In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the appellant/Insurance Company has successfully proved that the driver of the vehicle was not having the valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident, which was a breach of the conditions of the policy and thus the appellant/lnsurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Therefore we allow this appeal and hold that the appellant is not liable to pay compensation and that part of the impugned award is t3^J Thakur 10. u. 12. set-aside. However, the remaining part of the award is not interfered with in the instant appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Insurance Company has made the payment of the compensation. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 4 does not controvert this submission and submit that the claimants have already received the amount of compensation. If the amount has already been paid, as mentioned by learned counsel for the appellant and admitted by learned counsel for the claimants, the same may be recovered from the owner of the offending vehicle. The appeal is allowed and the impugned award dated 21.12.2005 is modified accordingly. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge iifc . /