IN THE HIGH C.OURT JUDICATURE_AT BILASPUR Misc. Appealc^o. ^^ OF 2006 Oivssion Beneti -4PPELLANT Jhe Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through the Manager, Branch Office, Geetanjali Bhawan, Main Road, Korba. Vs -y- ^^ESPONDENTS: ^(Claimants) <?'J'^ :fi (briver of vehicle) ^'Smt. Beena Prasad, widow of Late Ramkumar Prasad, ^y aged about 34 years. ^—2.Kumari Shristhi Prasad, daughter of Late Ramkumar Prasad, aged about 8 years, a minor through her natural guardian mother- Smt. Beena Prasad, widow of Late Ramkumar Prasad. Both residents of G-21, State Bank Colony, Jamnipali, Tehsil Katghora, bistrict Korba (C.G.) 3.^ Amar Singh, son of Nandlal Singh, resident of Village Khodiya- Chaarpara, bistrict Korba. (Qv^ner of vehicle) < ^ 4./Smt. Veena Yadav, through Shri B.S. Yadav, resident / of S-2/51, Railway Colony, Korba. APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHCILES ACT. 1988 A6AINST THE AWARD/ORbER DATEb 4W 5.2006 PASSEb IN CLAIM CASE N0^2/2005 BENCH PRESIDED OVER BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER SHRI C.L. PATEL. ^^^L h ^^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri I.M. Quddusi, & Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. M.A.(C)No. 450 of 2006 APPELLANT The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Versus RESPONDENTS Smt. Beena Prasad and others. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 Appearance: Shri Abhishek Sjnha, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ravish Verma, counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Gurudev I. Sharan, counsel for respondents No.3 & 4. Following I. M. Quddusi. J. ORAL ORDER (01/02/2011) oral order of the Court was passed by This appeal has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited against the impugned award dated 04/05/2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 12/2005 so far as fixjng the liability upon the appellant-lnsurance Company. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02/10/2004 at about 02:00 p.m. deceased Ramkumar Prasad along with hjs wife applicant No.1 Bina Prasad was going from Korba to State Bank Colony, Jamanipali jn his motorcycle Hero Honda bearing registration No. C.G.12-A/0459. When they reached near village Kodiyabasti a Marshal Jeep bearing registration No. C.G.12/7698 coming from opposite direction being driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant No.1 Amar Singh dashed the motorcycle from wrons direction as a result of which Ramkumar Prasad and his wife received grievous injuries. They were takento Govt. Indira Gandhi District Hospital, Korba for treatment but after two hours Ramkumar Prasad died. Deceased was aged about 35 years. He was posted as Assistant in State Bank of India and his monthly salary was Rs.12,509/- per month. The claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.85.60,200/-. ^^^•s^^ %, ff'.:s.^1 )^&y J ^ ca<« - 2. - 3. The Insurance Company has successfully proved that on the date of accjdent i.e. Jeep Mahindra Marshal was jnsured as Packaoe Policv for Zone 'B' Private Car but on the date of accident it was converted jnto Private Service Vehicle but the same was not intimated to the Insurance Company to change the insurance policy condition. Further the driver driving the said offending motor vehicle was not having the driving licence to drive a transport vehicle or a private service vehicle and ,therefore it cannot be said that the driver of the vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence. 4. Private ser/ice vehicle has been defined in clause (33) of Section 2 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as under:- "(33) "Private service vehicle" means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver and ordinarily used by or on behalf of the owner of such vehicle for th© purpose of carryjng persons for, or in connection with, his trade or business otherwise than for hire or reward but does not include a motor vehicle used for public purposes;" 5. Clause (47) of Section 2 thereof defines the transport vehicle which is as under:- "(47) "transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle;" 6. In the matter of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and another, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 253, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus in paragraph 10 as under:- "Section 10 of the Act provides for classes of the drivjng licence. Different dasses 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 institutlon bus or a private service vehicle. We have noticed hereinbefore the provjsions of sub-section (4) of Soction 41. Wo have also noticed the notification issued by the Central Government in this bohalf. Tho said notification clearly postulates that a throo- 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 vehiclo. It was valid from 13-5-2004 to 12-5-2024. Section 14(2)(a) provides that a driving licence issued or renewed under the Act shall, in case of a lincence to drive a transport vehicle will be effective for a period of three years ^> g»a 11^-^1 ^ '^'^•y y i -</ / ^" whereas jn the case of any other vehicle it can be issued or renewed for a period of 20 years from the date of issuanoe or renewal. The fact that the licence was granted for a period of 20 yoars, thus, cloariy shows that Salim Amadbhaj, drivor of tho vehicle, was not granted a valid driving licence for driving a transport vehicle." 7. In the matter of OrientaJ Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol & others reported in (2009) 11 SCC 356 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: "Aithough the definition of 'light motor vehicle' brings within its umbrage both "transport vehide" or "omnibus", jndisputably, a djstinction between an effective driving licence granted for transpori: vehicte and passong©rmotor vehicle exists. The distinction between a 'light motor vehjcle' and a 'transport vehicle' js evident. A transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but forthe purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained. Th©distinction between a "transport vehicle" and a "passenger vehicte" can also be noticedfrom Section 14 of the Act. Section 14 (2) provides for duration of a period of three years in case of an offective driving licence to drivo a 'transport vehicle', whereas In case of any other licence, it may remain offectivo for a poriod of twonty yoars. Thus, it is evident that a transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained......." 8. Therefore, for all purposes a private service vehicle is also a transport vehicle, therefore when the private service vehicle was not insured by the appellant or in other words we may say that the vehicle in question was not insured to use the same as private service vehicle, we are of the definite opinion that it cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. 9. In vjew of the above, we allow this appeal exonerate the appellant- Insurance Company from payment of compensation, however it will be open for the claimants to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle. 10. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd//- prashantKumarMishra Judge ^/r