^-.—i..——--...- ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: CHHATTISGARH MISC. APPEALNO.1^ OF 2006 ^ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.1988 Appeal valued at Rs. 61,900/- (Rupees Sixtv One Thousand Nine Hundred) only .y- Appellant National Insurance Co.Ltd. ^6n-Applicant No. 3 ^/ fDivisional Manager, Divisiohal Office, 23, Minu Complex, Kosabadi, main Road, Korba (Chhattisgarh), through its Acting Divisional Manager, Bilaspur Branch, Taha Complex, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ii^^r ..«•'' ..^p/ ^yy ^ Respondent No. 1 licant Versus Q^- ^, Chitra Kumar S/o Late Mangal Singh Rathia, aged about 20 years, Caste - Kanwar, 'R/o Tilga, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil & Distt. Raigarh (CG) Resoondent No. 2 Ngn-Applicant No. 1 ''/ Joginder @ Putru, S/o Uddham Singh Makhija, Occupation - Driver, aged about 28 years, R/o Tilga, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tehsil & Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) Respondent No. 3 (^- / Rajesh Kumar Chandwani, Non-A^plicant No. 2~" ^ S/o Bhagatram Chandwani, Occupation - Truck (Dumpher) Owner, No. MP26/D-4391, R/o Timrapur Chowk, Raigarh, Tehsil & Distt. Raigarh (CG) •> ^y^' 'l -^&^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhe Shvam Sharma lyiiscellaneous Appeal No. 145/2006 Nationa! Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Chitra Kumar and others ORDER Postfor 1^-07-2011 Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge ^A'«S^>,,' ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH AT B!LASPUR SB: Hon?b!e Shri Justlce Radhe Shyam Sharma Mssce!!aneous Appea! No. 145/2006 APPELLANT Non--a&pllcant No.3 Nationa! insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Respondents ChJtra Kumar and others. Appea! under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsei for the appeilant. None for respondents. 0 RD E R (Passed on l^ Ju!y, 201 1.) The appeal has been preferred by the insurance company cha'lenging the avvard dated 05.12.2005 passed by the 2nd Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunat, Raigarh In C!aim case No.77/2002 holding liabillty to pay the compensatioR tothe claimant on the non-claimants jQintlyor severaHy. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15th Januan/, 2002, the cSaimant/respondent No.1 was going from vi'lage Sapnai to viliage Tilga on a bicycte a!ong with Ku. Lalita and when he reached near border of Ti!ga- Bharoga, no.n-applicant No.l/respondent No.2, who was driving Dumper No. MP 26/D-4391 rash!y and negligently, dashed the bicycle. Both respondent No.1 and Ku. La!ita sustajned grievous injuries in the said accident. Respondent No.1 was admitted in Raigarh hospita! from 15.01.2002 to 19.02.2002 and then he was admitted in Jawaharla! Nehru Memoria! Hospital, Raipur from 23:9.2002 to 10.10.2002. A crimina! case was ^-:^^%. yV^ j v<^-^ ^ t ^. I /: %.!%sy '^y^a^s^ !j ^i registered against non-applicant No.l/respondent No.2 as crime No.5/02 for the offences u/s 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Pena! Code at Police Station Chakradhar Nagar. The claimant preferred claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 readwith Rule 220(1) ofthe Motor Vehides Rules, 1994 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.12,02,000/-. 3 . Non-applicants 2 & 3 opposed the claim petition. The appe!!ant insurance Company also opposed the c!aim petition and pleaded that no 1'ability of compensation can be fastened on the appellanVlnsurance Company. The 'earned Tribunal has partly a!!owed the claim of respondent No.1 and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.61,900/- in favour of the claimant holding liability as mentioned above.. 4. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counse! appearing for the appellant argued that iearned Tribuna! wrongly held that the appellant is liable to pay the compensation. The offending vehicle was a transport vehicle, but the driver of the vehicle was holding on!y iight motor vehicte license at thetime of accident which is not effective and valid license to drive the offending vehicle and the owner of the vehicle wil'fully breached the terms of the policy of insurance. 5. The only question raised by the appel'ant/lnsurance Company in this appeal is that the vehicle used by the driver is a transport vehicle and driver Jogender @ Putru was not competent to drive the said vehicle; under the driving license issued in his favour he was permitted to drive only light motor vehicie and as such since he was driving a commercia! vehicle, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel •1»1^' for the appellant has placed reliance on Oriental Insurance Companv Ltd. Vs. Anaad Ko! and others reported in (2009) 11 SCC 356 = (2009) AIR SCW 2747. In the matter of Ofiental fnsurance Company (supra), the Hon'b'e Supreme Court has he!d that there is distinction between 'light motor vehicle' and 'transport vehicle' and the transport vehicle may be light transport vehicle, but for the purpose of driving a definite license is required to be obtained. Registration certjficate of the offending yehjcle has not been p!aced on record of the Tribuna! by any of the parties. The certjficate-cum- policy of insurance of the offending vehicle refers to the type of the vehicle as goods carrying vehicle with carrying capacity not more than six persons including driver. 6. The word 'transport vehicte' has been defined under Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (herein referred to as Act 1988), it means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educationa! institution bus or a private service vehide. The connotation 'publicservice vehicle' has been defined under Section 2(35) which means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab, motorcab, contract carriage and stage carriage, thus the Auto Taxi is a pubiic service vehicle because it was adapted to carry passengers for hire or reward. Stnce it is a public service vehtele having insurance of commercia! purposes it becomes a transport vehicle as defined in Act 1988. 7. In view of the above, this Court js of the opinion that the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Orienta! Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol & Ors. (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case. It is not disputed that the driver was having a license to drive a light motor r vehicle which is different than the transport vehicie/goods vehicle, for the purpose of issuance of driving license. Thus, it is found that the driver was not having vaiid driving license to drive a transport vehicle/goods vehicle and as such since the vehicie was driven by an unauthorized person, the Insurance Company is not liab!e to indemnify the damages and satisfy the award. 8. In the result, the appea! preferred by the Insurance Company is allowed. The award against the Insurance Company is set aside. The award shal! now be satisfied by the owner and the driver of the vehicle. There shall be no order as to costs. R.S. Sharma Judge Bini III*.'