^ Bsr^N IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL FC1 N0. \^^ / 2011 MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 APPELLANT INSURER Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through : its General Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited 301, 302 Corp^ate House 169 RNT Ke^, Opposite Jhabua Tower, Indbre (M.P.) Vs. RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS ' ..<<''-.x ...''^ y^y' X x^" x\^ ^ DRIVER OWNER 1. Rekhabai Wd/o Gopal Yadav, aged about 28 years 2. Gajendra Yadav S/o Gopal Yadav, aged about 4 years, 3. Indra Kumar S/o Gopal Yadav, aged about 2 years, 4. Ku. Payal D/o Gopal Yadav, aged abou,t 1 month, 5. Ramnath S/o Gudiya Yadav, aged about 56 years, 6. Chanda Bai W/o Ramnath Yadav, aged about 50 years, Respondents No. 2 to 4 being minor represented mother Rekha Bai Yadav, All R/o village and post - Khouli, Tahsil and District - Raipur (C.G.) 7. Narayan Verma S/oHeera Lal, R/o village Karhidih, P.0.- Khouli, P.S. - Mandir Hasoud, District - Raipur (C.G.) 8. Ramnarayan Chandrakar S/o DashrathChandrakar, R/o village Karhidih, P.0.- Khouli, P.S. - Mandir Hasoud, District - Raipur (C.G.) l^^l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. (C) No. 198 of 2011 \^0 Appellant l^l^ Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Versus Respondents Rekhabai & others APPEAL UNDER SECTIQNJ.TS QF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8& Hon'ble Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. ^- Shri A. L. Singrol, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 6. Shri M. K. Bhaduri, Advocate for the respondents No. 7 and 8. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 22nd day of November, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 9.11.2010, passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, in Claim Case No. 64/2009, awarding a total sum of Rs. 9,65,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, holding the non-applicants, including the Insurance Company, jointly and severally liable to pay the amount ofcompensation. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lower Court record as also the findings given in the impugned award. 3. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 3.4.2009 at about 7.00 p.m. in the evening the non-applicant No.l (Narayan Verma) while driving the Tractor - Trolley bearing registration NQ. C.G. 06-ZD/1418 and 1419-C, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle, 7. bearing registration No. C.G. 04-CY/7954, which was being driven by Yashwant and Gopal Yadav was sitting as pillion rider. As a result of this accident Gopal Yadav received grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries. The matter was reported in the Police Station Kharora. The claimants, being legal heirs/dependents of deceased Gopal Yadav, filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 11,80,000/-. Learned Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and considering the evidence on record awarded a total sum of Rs. 9,65,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there was breach of the conditions of the insurance policy as the driver was not having the valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. The Tractor-Trolley is a goods carriage vehicle and therefore it is a transport vehicle but the driver was only having the licence to drive light motor vehicle (LMV). Further, the quantum is on higher side. On perusal of the papers on record, it is evident that Shri Rajesh Kumar Bhargava (D.W.3), License Clerk of R.T.O. Office, Raipur, has deposed that Narayan Verma, who was the driver of the tractor-trolley (offending vehicle), was issued a driving licence (Ex.D/2) for non-transport purpose to drive light motor vehicle and motor cycle by the licencing authority from 31.1.2006 to 30.1.2026. 8. Before proceeding further it is necessary to peruse the provisions of Rule 2 (b) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which is quoted below: "2 (b). "Agricultural tractor?? means any mechanically propelled 4 wheel vehicle designed to work with suitable implements for various field operations and/or trailers to transport agricultural materials. Agricultural tractor is a non-transport vehicle.?? In the case of Nagashetty Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and others (2001) 8 SCC 56 Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 10 has laid down as under: " 10. We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr S. C. Sharda. It is an admitted fact that the driver had a valid and effective licence to drive a tractor. Undoubtedly under Section 10, a licence is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicles. The question is whether merely because a trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used for carrying goods, the licence to drive a tractor becomes ineffective. If the argument of Mr S.C. Sharda is to be accepted, then every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle by itself does not make that tractor or motor vehicle a transport vehicle. The tractor or motor vehicle remains a tractor or motor vehicle. If a person has a valid driving Ucence to drive a tractor or a motor vehicle, he continues to have a valid licence to drive that tractor or motor vehicle even if a trailer is attached to it and some goods are carried in it. In other words, a person having a valid driving licence to drive a particular category of vehicle does not become disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle.?? 10. Clause (b) of Rule 2 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, as quoted above, provides for the definition of "agricultural tractorw which clearly lays down that the agricultural tractor means any mechanically propelled 4-wheel vehicle designed to work with suitable implements for various field operations and/or trailers to transport agricultural materials. It is a non-transport vehicle. 11. Having regard to the facts situation and the provisions of law, we are of the considered opinion that if the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Tractor-Trolley was having a driving licence to drive a non-transport vehicle - light motor vehicle he could drive an agricultural tractor which is a non-transport vehicle. There is no dispute that the tractor in question was insured for agricultural purpose and the same was an agricultural tractor as defined in sub-clause (b) ofSection 2 ofthe Rules, 1989. 12. In view of the above it cannot be said that the driver of the Tractor was not having the valid and effective driving licence to drive the agricultural tractor, which was the offending vehicle, on the date of the accident. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants. 13. In regard to the challenge of the impugned award on the question of quantum, we are of the opinion that on the basis of the certificate of the employer, learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6532/- i.e. Rs. 78,384/- per annum and after deducting 1/3rd towards 14. personal and living expenses, it has assessed the dependency of Rs. 52300/- p.a. Further, looking to the age of the deceased as 30 years, the application of multiplier of 18, awarding amount under the conventional heads and the imposition of interest @ 6% p.a. are justified. Thus, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned award. In view of the above the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Thakur