•B IIIS;I!1 ^ Kvision SaatA IN THE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH^UDICATURE AT BILASPUR M.A. ^j^ /2005 APPEALLANT J^WM APPLICANT ss The Oriantal Insurance Co. Ltd. Through:- Divisional Maneger Division Offiee In front of High Court Bilaspur (C.G.) Vs. Respondents /APPLICANTS ^Q' ..•'^' ^^ / ^y ^ 8/fti/d./ _^)W -^^.•^/ ^'fy /¥y /^v I.Lilavati W/0 Lat. Samay lal ?L Aged 42years ^2. Ramnaresh Shahu S/0 Lat. Samaylal ^ Ageql25years !. Ramkaran Shahu S/0 Lat. Samaylal Aged 20 yeare ^ 4.^§angeataShahu w/o Ramnaresh Shahu aged about 23 years t5/ Deapak kumar S/0 Ramnaresh Shahu aged about 07 years >. Ku.Mamta D/o Ramnaresh Shahu aged about 05 years j-7. Ku. Pritea D/0 Ramnaresh Shahu y aged about03 years (res. No. 5 to 7 minor through mother SangeataRes. No. 4) ^&./Laxandhari S/0 Lat. Dhaneshar Shahu ^v- aged about 62 year 8861;^LOV3-131H3Ay010W JO £ZI-S/n ^V^ddV 'OSIUU ^ ('O'O) Jndfejns 'ISIQ jndfejns ejed jefeg euejnj o/y 'ipeqex sjesA gg inoqe psBe nqnys qsojeyqiuey o/S nqeyg jeiun)| ^oysv ' I. ^ ('O'O) Jndfejng -ISSIQ' jndfejng -qei rs eueqi 'jndisne6v SBB||!A 0/y ' JSAUQ sjesA s, inoqe psBe IBSJBLUV 0/S ueAejeuAjqg @ spBMfey BAII^S '6\- ('O'O) jndfejng •ISSIQ jndfejns •qei'g eueiji ' jndfjns'peoy ueyieABiig o/y ||V sjesA ^.g inoqe psBe 'T>^< ^ueqpuexe-i -}eq Q/AA UBtun>|tey -e ^ HIGH COURT OF CHMATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi and Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Miscellaneous Appeal No.945 of 2005 Appellant The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Respondents Lilavati and others Present: Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for the appellant. Shri D.N.Praj'apati, counsel for respondents No.1 to 9. None for other respondents. Miscellaneoys Appeaiunder Se^ction 173 of the Motor Vehicles_Act ORAL ORDER (Passedon 8th March, 2011) Per I.IVI. Quddusi, J.: l-1eard. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited challenging the award dated 14-1-2005 passed by the 3 Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C:), Surajpur in Claim Case No.50/2003 only in respect of imposing liability upon it for payment of amount of compensation. 3. Case of the claimants, as stated in the claim petition, is that on the date of accident, i.e., 5-8-2003, deceased Samaylal was going duty from his residence at Surajpur to Bhatgaon via Bhaiyathan road in a Kawasaki motor cycle bearing registration No.MP 27E 0840. At that time, a Pickup Jeep bearing registration No.CG 15A 1741, coming from Vishrampur, being driven by non-claimant Sihiva Rajwade alias Shivnarayan rashly and negligently, dashed the motpr ;"n aMsiSr w cycle on Ambikapur-Manendragarh public road in Village Keshavnagar. As a result of the accident, Samaylal sustained grievous injuries on his person and after about 11/2 hoursof the accident he died. The claimants/legal heirs of the deceased Samaylal preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.25,10,000/-. 4 . The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.17,48,136/- in favour of the claimants holding liability to pay the same on the non-claimant insurance company. 5. The Pickup Jeep was a goods carrying commercial vehicle. The insurance policy of the same was also for Zone C goods carrying commercial vehicle other than three-wheeler and as such the same was a commercial vehicle. The driver of the Pickup Jeep was having a driving licence for driving a light motor vehicle only which was issued on 20-3-1998 and was effective upto 19-3-2018, i.e., for20 years. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company has submitted that the driver of the Pickup Jeep was having a driving licence to drive a private light motor vehicle and not the-goods or transport vehicle and, therefore, he was not having a valid and effective licence to drive the goods carrying commercial vehicle on the date of accident. Hence, there was breach of policy of insurance, therefore, the insurance company should not have been held liable to pay the amount of compensation. It was the -X. c^ liability of the owner of the Pickup Jeep to pay the amount of compensatlon. 7. Section 14 ofthe Act reads thus: "14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles.- (1) A learner's licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of licence. (2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall,- (a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period ofthree years: Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one year and renewal thereof shall be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course ofthe prescribed syllabus; and (b) in case of any other licence,- (i) if the person obtaining the licence, either originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained the age of (fifty years) on the date of issue or, as the case may be, renewal thereof- (A) be effective for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal; or (B) until the date on which such person attains the age of (Fifty Years), (ii) xxxxxxxxx Provided that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section continue to be effective for a period of thirty days fromsuch expiry." 8. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Angad Kol and others, (2009) 11 SCC 356, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: •<a- o "Although the definition of 'light motor vehicle' brings within its umbrage both "transport vehicle" or "omnibus", indisputably, a distinction between an effective driving licence granted for transport vehicle and passenger motor vehicle exists. The distinction between a 'light motor vehicle' and a 'transport vehicle' is evident. 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. The distinction between a "transport vehicle" and a "passenger vehicle" can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Act. Section 14 (2) provides for duration of a period of three years in case of an effective driving licence to drive a 'transport vehicle', whereas in case of any other licence, it may remain effective for a period of twenty years. 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......." 9. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Prabhu Lal, (2008) 1 SCC 696, it was held thus: "30. Now, it is the case of the Insurance Company that the vehicle of the complainant which met with an accident was a "transport vehicle". It was submitted that the insured vehicle was a "good carriage" and was thus a "transpori: 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 liable to pay compensation. 10. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and another, 2008 (3) T.A.C. 20 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, repelling the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that it did not matter as to whether the driving licence issued for auto rickshaw was adapted for carrying passengers or goods, has held that the driver was not holding an effective driving iicence to drive auto rickshaw delivery van. 11. The insurance company was successful in proving the fact that the driver was having a licence to drive the private light motor vehicle issued for 20 years by producing Mr. Dayaram Dhruw from the Regional Transport Office, Ambikapur, District Surguja, who has stated that Shiva Rajwade alias Shivnarayan was having driving licence No.MP27/682/ABR/98, which was issued on 20-3-1998 and was valid upto 19-3-2018, i.e., for 20 years and the vehicle in question bearing registration No.CG 15 A 1741 was registered as LGV Pick-up Van on 27-5-2003, manufacturer of which is Mahindra and Mahindra. 12. Thus, in view of the admitted fact that the driving licence has been issued for a period of 20 years, it can be safely said that the same has been issued for the purpose of a vehicle other than a transport vehicle, as, had it been issued for a transport vehicle, the tenure thereof could not have exceeded to three years, as per Section 14(2)(a) of the Act, and since the driver had no licence to drive a transport vehicle, in absence of necessary endorsement in his licence to that effect, he could not have driven the offending vehicle and when that vehicle met with the accident, the appellant Gopal insurance company could not be made liable to pay the amount of compensation. 13. In view of the above discussion, the miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part. The quantum fixed by the Claims Tribunal is not interfered with in view of the fact that the insurance company is not held liable to pay the amount of compensation. The amount of compensation shall be recovered by the claimants from the owner of the vehicle in question bearing registration No.CG 15A 1741. There shall be no order as to costs. jsa- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge i'v'