HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT^ILASPUR SB: Hon^ble Shri Justice R. L. Jhaawar, Misc. Appeal No.562/2009 APPEVLANT INSURER ICICI Lonibard, General Insuraace Coiapaay Limited, Registered office; ICICI Bank Towers, Bandm Kurla, Coixiplex, Murabai 400051, through its Legal Maaager, ICICI Loiabard General Insuraace Conipaay Uaiiited Lal Gaaga Shopping Mall, 3rd floor, G.E. Road, Raipur (CG) RESPONDENTS Claimants Driver Versus 1. Dhiraj Sahu s/o Girdhari Sahu, aged about 31 years, 2. Pushpa Bai w/o Dhiraj Sahu, aged about 29 years, v Both R/o Near Ramkund Shaai Mandir, P.S. Saraswati Nagar, TahsU aiid Distdct Raipur (CG) 3 Chaadresh Baghel, s/o Ishwar Lal Baghel, R/o near Gaapat Chowk, Heerapur, Raipur, P,S. Aaiuaaaka, TahsU and District Raipur (CG) 4 Rajesh Kumar Chopkars/o Johaa Lal Chopkar R/o near Gaapat Chowk, Heerapur, Raipur, P,S, Aamanaka, TahsU and Distdct Raipur (CG) APPBAL UNDBR SECTION 173 QP THE MOTOR VBHICLBS ACT Appearance; Shri Saurabh Sharaaa, counsel for fhe appeUaiit None for respondents No, 1 aad 2. Shri Vijay Sahu, counsel for respondents No,3 aiid 4. Owner 'WMi^ OI^)ER ( (^.09.2010) R.L. Jhanwar, J. 1. This is Insurance appeal directmg agaiast fhe unpugned award dated 28.01.2009, passed in Claim Case No. 13/2008 by the 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) (in short the Tribunal), whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,62,000/- as compensation ia fhe deafh case of 3 years child. 2. Bnef facts in a nutshell, are that fhe claimauts/ respondents No. 1 and 2 are fhe unfortunate parents of fhe deceased- Digeshwar, a child aged about 3 years. On 19.10.2007, at about 6.00 p.m., rcspondent No.3- Chandrcsh Baghel, was driving the offending vehicle/ Tata 207, bearing registration No.CG 04 J 5968 in a rash and negUgent maaner aad dashed Digeshwar, due to which, he sustaiaed grievous iojuries, resultmg mto his death. Respondent No.4 - Rajesh Kumar Chopkar is the owner of the offending vehicle, 3. Seeking compensation of Rs.4,09,000/- under various heads, claim petition was filed wherein respondents No. 1 and 2 pleaded titiat their son was aged about 3 years; he was a healthy and wise boy and in future, he would have helped them fmaaciaUy, but, due to his unfortuiiate death fhey have mentally disturbed. They claimed compensation for Rs,4,09,000/". 4. Respondents No. 3 aad 4 denied the facts, pleaded by fhe claunaats/rcspondents No. 1 and 2 and stated that they are not responsible for payment of compensation as fhe vehicle was msured with Uie appeUaat/Insuraace Compaay. 5. After affording of opportunily to adduce evidence and hearing fhe parties and after appreciating fhe evidence aad IHT:;^^'':'"'.'^.^^: w docunients available on record, learaed Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum ofRs.1,62,000/- as total acaount of compensation to fhe clainiants. 6. Leamed counsel for the appeUaat/Insiiraace coxuipaiiy vehemently argued that fhe deceased was aged about 3 years oixly aad on the basis of ioiagiaation, no coinpensation could be given to his parents. He also stated that fhe owner aad driver of fhe vehicle are Uable tbr payment of compensation as there was a breach of conditions of fhe Insuraace poUcy. The driver was not having effective and valid Ucence at fhe tinie of accident He was not haviag Ucence for goods transport. He was haviag a Ucence for Light Motor Vehicles, which is not peniiissible for driviag Tata 207 fherefore; the Insuraiice coiapaay/appeUaiitshouldbe exonerated. He placed reMaace ia the matter of Orientat Insurance CQ. Ltd. V. Angad Kol, ia which, fhe Apex Court observed ia paragraph 10 as uuder: "10. The distmction between a <Ught motor vehicle^ aad a 'traasport vehicle' is fherefore,, evident. A traasport vehicle inay be a Ught miotor vehicle but for fhe purpose of driviDig fhe saoie, a distinct Ucence is required to be obtamed. The distmction between a 'transport vehicle' and a 'passenger vehicle'" can also be noticed j&om section 14 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of section 14 provides for duration of a penod of 3 years ia case of aa effective Ucence to drive a 'toransport vehicle) whereas in case of axiy ofher licence, it niay reinain. effective for a period of 20 years.^ 7, On the other haad, learaed counsel for respondents No. 3 aad 4 submitted that tiie learaed Tribunal has rightiy held responsible fhe Insurance Conipaay because fhe Driver was haviag effective aiid valid licence at fhe tiine of accident, He ai^ued fhat fhe award is on fhe higher side aad fhe same should be reduced, Claioiants were not prcsent fhough ser^ed. -^ 8. I have heard learaed counsel for the pardes aiid perused the award aad record of fhe Clanns Tribunal, 9. So far as rash aad negUgent driviag of fhe driver is conceraed, the Tribunal has held ia para 8 aad 9 fhat the deceased was a chUd aged about 3 years; he was staading near his house. At that tiine, fhe Driver ofabove vehicle Tata 207 canie wifh driving the vehicle rashly and negl^enfly aad dashed the deceased due to that he died, FIR was lodged. He also produced Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/8, docunxents relating to fhe accident 10. Evidence of Santosh Kumar Sahu, (AW-2) shows that fhe driver was driviag the vehicle rashly aad negUgentiy, due to which he dashed Digeshwar, who received grievous mjuries and died. Documents Exs. Pl to P8 atso support ftus contention, It is clear fhat charge sheet was filed before fhe conceraed Court; fherefore, the Tribunal has held that the Driver was responsible as he was driviag fhe vehicle rashly aad negligently, fherefore, this findmg has attaiaed fniality. 11. So far as holdmg of drivmg Ucence is conceraed, it is evident from. fhe evidence of Preinnarayaii Gupta (NAW-1), who is a Clerk ui R.T.O. has stated that Ucence No. C 3345 has been issued ia fhe nanie of Chandresh Baghel, which is a L.M,V. licence. It was valid from 9.7.2004 to 8.7.2024 for 20 years. This licence was issued for Light Motor Vehicles aad therc is no endorseinent for driving aiiy ofher vehicle. He proved Ex, D2 aiid Ex. D3. In cross examination he has not stated aaythiag. He has stated fhat he does not know whefher Tata 207 is a light niotor vehicle or heayy Biotor vehicle or toraasport vehicle. He stated fhat if aay person waiited Ucence for corainercial vehicle, he should obtaia trainiag certificate, only payment of fee is not sufl&cient. 12. In fhis case, driver was not haviag eflTective and vaMd licence for driviag Tata 207, which is a traiisport vehicle. Owner aad Driver have not given aay evidence ftiat Tata 207 was a passenger vehicle, traasport vehicle or personal vehicle, thercfore, it is clear that Tata 207 is a traasport vehicle, The Ucence was issued only for driviag Light Motor Vehicle aad it was issued for 20 years, whereas, Ucence for traasport vehicle is issued for 3 years. In this case, the Ucence was issued for 20 years. Evidence of Premnarayaii Gupta (NAW-1), who is a Clerk ia R.T.O., Ucence No. C 3345 is issued ia the name ofChandresh Baghel, which is a L.M.V. Ucence. It was valid from 9.7.2004 to 8.7.2024 for 20 years. This Ucence was issued for Light Motor Vehicles and ftiere is no endorsement for driviag aay other vehicle. For passenger or traiisport vehicle, endorseinent is necessary. 13. Iu Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Angad Kol (supra) aad New India Assurance Co. I/td. v. Roshanben Rahenwnsha Fakir and anofhcr, 2008 ACJ 2161, the Apex Court held fhat Ucence haviag been granted for a period of twenty years, a presuinption, ftierefore, adses that it was ineant for the purpose of a vehicle ofher fhaa a traasport vehicle, 14. In Oriental Insurance Ca. Ltd. V. Angad JKot (supra), tiie Apex Court has also discussed about its judgraeat rendercd ia fhe matter of Natlonal Insurance Conywny Iib&^ V. Anneypa Irappa Nesesria & Others (supra) an.d fouiid fhat driver ofshould always be held wifh. effective aad valld driviag licence, accoixliag to type of vehicle and ftien only it caai be said fhat driver is holditig valid and eflFective liceace. 15. After relying upon fhe aforesaid judginent of fhe Apex Court aad for the foregoiag discussion, it is clear fhat the driver - Chaiidresh Baghel was haviag only drivnig Ucence for L.M.V. aad the same was granted to Tiim w.e.f. 9.7.2004 to 8.7.2024. There is r ...,.^-T^.^., /y^ v\ no endorsement m his licence to ply traasport vehicle aad it is only for Ught motor vehicle. According to Section 3 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, no person shall drive a inotor vehicle ia aay pubUc place unless he holds an ejffective driviag Ucence issued to him aufhoriziag hiia to drive fhe vehicle; and no person shall so drive a iransport vehicle other fhan a motorcab hired for his own use or rented under aay scheine inade under sub-section (2) ofsection 75 unless his driving licence spedfiwdly entitles him, so to do. Thus, it is clear that the driver ia fhis case was holdiag licence of L.M.V. which disentities hmi to drive traasport vehicle. Qn tiie date of accideiit, fhe driver offhe offeEKling vehrcle was drivmg fhe vehfcle without haviag valid aiid effective drivifig Ucence ia breach of msuraiice poUcy, therefore, the iasuraace compaay, appellant herein, is not liable to pay compensation, resulting iato/the uisurance coinpao.y is hereby exonerated. In fhis xaatter, fhe owner has not filed aay appeal. 16. In view of the facts and circumstaaces mentioned above, siace the Insurance Compaay is exonerated from its Uabitity to pay compensation, fhe compensation ofRs. 1,62,000/- awarded by fhe Tribunal, which is just aad proper compensation, thereforc, shaU be paid by fhe owner of fhe offending vehicle- Rajesh Kumar Chopkar, respondent No.4 along with mterest as fbced by the Tribuaal. Iffh.e Insuraace Company has already paid any amount of compensation, fhen the Insuraace Compaay caa recover fhe same from fhe Owner. Accordmgly, fhe impugaed award ia so far as it relates to pay first and recover later is set aside and modt&ed to the extent iadicated above. The appeal is partly allowed. 17, No order as to costs. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge