3^? •-'ll^l^, axfl^'Ko, R<">iy^< <<Wdl **<l<h W^ 200 an^r iraw (ipf^^i; sn^i ^; R-fi'* ^V •aflT^T 9fi*lieh (-. 'renwgfei aii^i <*)<LlI<rl^l'l 'WRR^f ^fe1^ <^[i<$i< ^silgiTan^i teisc. ^.ppeal No. 18/2004 APPBLLANTS Rjamaa SIulvastava, age 20 years, S/'o. S|hii . Nagendraiiath Shriyastava, R/o. K|edarpur, Town Ainbikapur, Distt. S^-uguja (Driverj S^njay Shrivastava, S/o. Shn R^idheshyajii Shrivastava, age 24 years, ecupation Seivice, R/o. Neai' Missioii Cplowk Kedarpiu-, Town, P.S. & Tafasil A^nbikapur, Distt. Suigiija(C.G.}(Owaer) versus REsPONDEN'T 1. A 7^ (Cf ^. D' APPBLLANT 1. (<1 RESPONDBn-T 1. A1 2^ fj frl [it Gupta, S/'o. Vijay Narayaa Gupta, age years, R/o. Khatikpara, Namnakala, |S. & Tahsii Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja ,G,) (Claimaat) ^•aucli Mauagcr, Oriculal lusui-aucc C^nipany Liiuited, Banaras Chowk, (nbikapur, District Siu^uja (C.G.) (Inswrer) Misc. Anpeal No. 648/2004 O^iental Insuraace Coinpany Ltd. tMrousli its Divisioiisl Mauajser* Qivisiou 0|G&ce, Opposite High Court, Bflaspur o.) VCTSUS jit Gupta, S/o. Vijay Narayau Gupta, age }rears, R/o. Khatikpara, Namnakala, ^S. & Tah.su Ambikapiir, Dtett. Surguja .0.) (Ctaimaat) 2. R^iaaa Shrivastava, age 20 years, S/o. S^ui Nagendra.nath Shrivastava, R/o, Distt. ;aarpuT, AuiDiKapur, S^trgula (Driverj ,.4, I XI-HG—78 3^T '^nw^, ^w'w, ^vftwy y MW^I *NI«h "Wl^ 200 gn^OT tsra; (^f^s^i) sii^iw R-fi.'ti 'ciS?! SH^T'3?R TCiiwofei sii^r 'ttiitct'h'i »ii*)<4!tf_ft^<ra]«;i< i;3JiOT 31)^1 3. Sanja^ Radhel Uccuppoon C.howU. Distt. Shrivastava, S/o. Shri hyara Shrivastava, age 24 years, Service, R/'o. Near Mission Kedarpur, N^ar Ambikapur, Suiyija (C.G.) (Ownerj I 27-4-2007 Advtxiate Shri A.K.Prasad. 18/2004 and for respondent N4 Shri Abhisfaek Smha, No. 18/2004aadforappellaiit Shri V.K.Pandey, Advoc; 18/2004 & M.A. No. 648/2004^ M.A. No. 18/2004 at the| M.A. No. 648/2004 at the int beiag disposed ofby this coinict anse out ol t&e same awarcl Additional Motor Accident Claut Claim Case No. 36/2003 awaraect a suia ot Ks. 92,997 held that 50% of fhe amouat severaUy by driver Rainan Shrivastava aad rest 50% amol <-;oiupany. for appellauts ia M.A. No. 1.2 & 3 iu M.A. No. 64S/2004. Ad|vocate for respondeat No.2 ia M.A. jn M.A. No. 648/2004. te for respon.deu.t No.l ia M.A. No. uifctance laufa wherebv instance of driver aad owner and of Insuraace Coinpany are Da|on judginent as both fhese appeals [lated 09.12.2003 passed by First i4is TTibunal, Ambikapur-Sarguja ia the learaed Clauns Tribuiial has I- fo fhe claiinant aiid has farther ^warded shau be paid jointly aad Shnvastava aad owner Sanjay o1|uit shall be paid by the Insuiaiice *^ 9 XI-HC—78 29 75? •^ww^, aiTfl'M'Ks, Isi(?»i'yl4< 'WTriT **11* "^ 200 SII^IqiI^TO? ^qT SIT^I ^IIRT an^?r ^BR; (iyF-tiiii{ti) ^BTW^llTO 311^1 2. Tiie only arguinentt wifh respect to liabiiity driver Rainaa Shrivastav^ licen.se at the ttme of ' owner Haniay ynnvastav^. Shnvastava to drive fhe st which the claimaiit basis of pleaduig of the F^ tramed Issue No.3 Shrivastava was holdiag date of accident aud Saujay Shrivastava aUowep to drive Baiaj Scooter Insuiance Policv. df adcident sustalnea whtfher Issilie 3. Leamed counsel subiDitted that burden w{ the appeUant No. 1 did at fhe timf of accident i Shrivastava aUowed ttie fhat he doe not have valid subHUtted tfaat me Riile 4 ofthe CPC before f &e Knew Kaiaau he freqiXently visited his ndt cttrver appeU^at Stu-ivastEtwa <4>l'ii?<?pil';i 'WR?f ^f^l^1^ <[fl«$i< "^ sfRrq'3H^T advaaced by the respective parties was satisfiruig the award and whether fhe was haviug valid aad effectiye driviag on 28.11.2002 and whether fhe consciouslv allowed fhe driver Ramau. ;oofer who caused accident as a result of iajuries over his right knee. On the spective parties learued Claims Tribunal the iion-applk-ant No. 1; Rauian faSxa. and effective driviug Ucense on the No.4 whether the non applicaat No.2 non-applicaat No. 1 Ramaa Shrivastava m contravention of the conditions of |for the appeUants/driver & Owner ^s on Insurance Coinpany to prove that have vaUd and elfective driving license ^nd further fhat appeUaD.t No.2 Saajay to drive vehicle consciously knowing and effective driviag license. He furftier No.2 ia his afBdavit under Oider 18 (he Tribunal has categoricaUy stated that who was resident of saine localitv and hbuse. He had verified froin Wni about his •fr) 'lt--^..... •t—<-.., \ii'- XI-HC—78 ?^ ssq' ^ww^, ^ww, ^<ftwy. *41*1dl Sh*<l<»> Wl, 200 an^ifr •qaq; C^?f^5?T) svSxw K-u'h •gqT3H^IWlW •renw^ifCT 3ii^i 'bllfdl'l-l ^WvS ^1^6 tfaittK ^ stf^H 3n^?T driving Ucense and he scooter.Me had also seen neighbouT and he was circumstaiices after due v( Ramaa Shrivastava as he did not have aay driviiig placed iu para 84 of fhe Insurance CoiapanT Ud. siatBd that he had driving ticen.se for I^aoian Shrivastava driviag scooter of his lefticient ia driviag scooter. In the irification he had entrusted scooter to no reason to disbeUeve him that he Bicense to drive a scooter. Reliaiice is judgnient ia fhe inatter of National |Vs. Swaran Singa 6s Others reported lliad in 2004 (31 sGG2y7. 4. On the other haud aelence ot t&e Insurance that the driver of fhe vehicM Ucence on fhe date of permitted hiiu to drive the Insuraiice policy. He furth^ reply to the notice issued Cr.P.C. t&at fhe driver photocopy of fhe Ucense o( was given by fhe driver have vaiid and effective even after fhe reply filed bi did not aniend the written iacorporate me pleaduig ths drive iii^ scooter he had Sl&ri Abhishek Sinlia subinitted that fhe C<)inpany before fhe Tribuual was speci&c did not have vaUd aad effective drivuig laccident Ownei Sanjay Shrivastava Ivehicle in violation of the couditions of fcr submitted that Insurcd had said in fby the poUce under Section 91 of fhe h^d valid license aad he had afExed |his own driviug license. Identical reply whdreia the driver admitted fhat he did uot dijiving Ucense. He fttrther submits that the Insuraace Compaoy the appeUant statenieDl filed before the Tribunal to (t before atkwring Ramaii Shrivastava to aU efibrts to venfr that he had vaUd matle •4. XI-HG—78 3^sr -^ww^, •a-'^wiG, Ri^wy 2-> tlWc^l **<!* W^ 200 sn^?t'wra ('pfysti) 3l^iyy R;-li+ '?isn STT^I 5^*11'* 'reiIWSf?^ 311^1 '=fti<iF<n<Il^ ]hti*i<if 'if^fel3t ^R>t*$f< ^sTfiwsn^T and eBective driving Ifcens^ written statement of owntr regarding seeiug fhe drive|r evidence, is of no sigiuficanc|i Uas examuiea AbraJiam K£TI oam that on ttie date of ac<t Ucense and he was not crd uarepeated, fherefoie, fhe coinpensation. Reliaace is Insuraace Company Ud.. Therefore in absence of pleading in and driver, statement of owner fi-equenUy driving scooter during je. He further submite that the Insurer ttetta as a witness who has stated ou. [ident, the driver did not have driviag |ss exauuned aud his version stauds I^isuraace Conipauy is not liable to pay placed in fhe matter of Satlonal ys. Laxml Naravan Dhuf passed by the Supreine Coiirt in C 02.03.2007. It is submitted (Supra) has no appUcation tc and in the instaut case Insuraace Compaay and th S'waraa Singh's case has no 5. I have heard leanied c the records as also the iinpuj ;ivil Appeal No. 1140/2007 dated that the decision of S'waraii Singh Uie cases ofher thaa fhud party risk the dispute is between owner and erefore ratio of the law laid down ia ^ppUcation. punsel for the parties. i have perused Enea awara. 6. The appeBaats in the| Tnbuaal have denied fhe av< speci&c pleadiag with respe( vehicle was entrusted to R4niau due verilication has bed |r joint written Stateinent before the ^rments ofclaun petition. However no bt to circuinstaaces itader which the Shrivastava by fhe owner after n pleaded whereas the Insurance ^. XI-HG—78 ^fa 'S^ -^W^, (?Tfly'l<o, (sKyiiyy NWc^l **|1* WI. 200 3II^?T TBRT C^fg^T) 3II^?19il K-li* w sn^r skii* ^giw ^tor sii^i t(»IAli<ri<il^ •qi^<af^f^sil <F*i+$K "^ sfRpT 3n^?r wsls Com.pany in their written the vehicle ia question 27.06.2003aD.d further m fhat non-appUcaat No 2 'policy atlowed the nou-i effective driviag Ucense circunistaaces fhe iasurerl satisfying fhe unpugned Tribiuial even after record^n driven bv the driver who (fti Ucense at the ttme of accidt the owaer ofthe vehicle contravention of Uie Coinpaay liable to satisnj contraiy to fhe law as also cdutravei ap^licaut ^tateinent have admitted in para 16 that insured for the period 28.06.2002 to liaragraph 24 & 25 it has been pleaded cc[utravening the conditions of Iiisuraace No.l who did not have vaUd aad |on fhe date of accMent In fhese cannot be saddled with the liability of jaward. It is further argued fhat fhe rd^ng a findiag that the vehicle was beiag i^id not have valid and effective driving ;nt and further recorduig a finding that pe|mutted the driver to drive the vehicte in policy, has niade the InsuTauce 50% of the awarded suiu which is the inaterial available on record. Insufaace affidavit 7. Froin perusal of 9 it is observed ttlat Ram^n ttie dnving Ucense tiowev^r appeUants before the Tributial. appeUaD.t has admitted t|iat drivuig license. The stateiBJent the T'ribunal is to be examifaed his statenieiut has not pleajied Shri^aqtava he had verifie|l ivit of appeUant No.2 particularJy para Shrivastava had given photocopy of no document has been ffled bv fhe lal. On the contrary the couasel for the Raman Shrivastava did not have on oath of this •witness even before ed in the light of the fact that owner ui a word fhat before aUowing Raman froin the driver that he had dnviag ^ V XI-HC—78 ^{ 3:SET '<ll<(l<7i^, ®Tfl'M'l<»,Islciiyy ^Wv\{ **<!* 'V^ 200 an^?T wv (ipf^g^i) 3H^I V K-fi'* ^^ sn^r sti*iic^ TOiIW ^lfef SII^T <<iii!<')<i)"f *i]»«tfiffvS <Fai«<i< ^SlfilHSII^T t license to drive fhe vehicle.1 of appeUaat No. 1 duriug tb( he deliberatelv avoided not reqzured to lead eviden|( avauable on record, atter Shrivastava aad his aocuiuentarv ana oral No.a/lnsurance <Joinpaay, ar^uinent that appeUant vehicle after due verificatioil The Tribunal considering fhe conduct proceeding has categoricaUy held that app^aririg befoiB me Tribunal so that he is :e. Thus, after examiuing the evidence Igoiag tfarough the aflBdavit of Saajay eviflence and also going through Uie ^vidence produced by non-appli.caat I am ot ttie consjderecl view ttiat me No. 2 had allowed the driver t6 drive ttio4, caiuiot be accepted. 8. Sectioii 5 of Motor owners of inotor vehicle fhslt does not satisfy me provisicjns vehicle i.e. necessity ofhavjng inotor vehicle ui any pubUc years. In ttie instant case qie vaUd and efFective dnvin^ pemutted flie driver to driff 'i'fie ttncluig ot Uie 'l'nbuual Uable for payment ol 50i^> sustauied. Vehicles Act 1988 casts a duty on the they shaU not permit aay persoii who ofSection 3 or Section 4 to drive the driviag Uceuse aud person driviag a [place has attained a statutoiy age of 18 driver of fhe scooter was not having license aud the owner consciouslv ite the vetucle wifhout due veriticatioii, that fhe Insiu-ance Coinpany shall be of fhe awarded amount cannot be 9. In fhe result, M.A. N<}. 18/2004 preferrcd by the driver and owner fafls aad is disiiussed. ^ / •4t, ^ XI-HC—78 ^sss •*ti<itt<<i*t, •QT&W'W, ftoi'Hy ^^ s^s sff R-fi'* •gsn aii^i **<te !) <-, MW^I tbMlcb '"^ an^riRlw C^^^y) ?^II^R 'yE^a sn^r 10. The appeal M.A/No. Coiupanyis aUowed. The ini^u that the appellaat/ Insiiran4e liabflity01 payment of --.t- Saajay y.&nvastava ana owner sewera] ; Hable to satisfy Tribunal. It is furfher direct be entttted to recover the $48/2004 preferred by the Insui-ance imrtugned award is modified to the extent Company is exonerated from fhe asfrarded ainouut aud driver Raman Shrivastava are held jointly and the entire amount awarded bv fhe t^d fhat fhe lusurance Coiupauy shall ani4unt ifaay, ah-eady paid by it. n. • sd/- __^^ liDHIBENDRAMISHRAI Judge r-^ cbl^E<"i?ft;i 'WR^tf,ts'tzt <R((<$K ^aiiOTsii^r