i >^ff ^ y\^ lNi^K;Nl;©M.(::0BR^.Siil3®l©^ g^^^ ^.m't:@)^^L32Q091: -:,u^...::.s'" ;AF(>ELL%NL:, Claimeint S^i.,.^! ^•9'M;ey^f SiffSIWSffi KBi^IW .GQpal Nisl-iad S/Q: Mciltavr NjslTOd •.;-,;'. |:Ag^Gl^<::i&out:^26(:ye'ars,^ RyQ^?1n^ tow^Sif ^@MhQtu.'::DOctQfe's^HiQifse;;;^hrina^ •RlntarHtarah RQJROr, j^ahsil. a :'Raiipur'((2;<3;.i^':'I.Y:'. , : ..•,:;:: ., :'• :. .•:::,1:: y MSR^US :RES£©NBEN3S NOH-CLA1MANT :The:New}rieii£:ilr)Sur©nSS;®©.SI-td,'' 'PoliGy:, .issued -^plQee iY.Mdti'GlQl^ PffiGe'No.2, Thi'ougl')^:' DivisiQ'ral^ MQrlaggr, Divisional'. Qffice, Kutchery:,:0HG)wk,:Jail^;Rti(ad; :Raipur;(G;.©.l:' 1;, ,. ~,:^;.',^^^ Mis&il1iiS^Si&Bsi^^^iialNMM,S:©©ti& ^ •::%^:l:'l'::i)i^iiititRi@fflc1:^^c^,.^9^ ^ ...-• HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT: Claimant RESPONDENT: Non-claimant M.A.(QNo.89of2009 Gopal Nishad Versus The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Present: Shri A.L. Singroul, counsel for the appellant. Single Bench: Hon'bleShri PrashantKymarlVlishra, J JUDGNIENT (17-6-2011) 1. The appellant/claimant is the owner cum driver of Swaraj Majda vehicle bearing registration No.CG-04/J-5067. The vehicle met with an accident at village Risda on Champa-Baradwar road at about 5.30 am on 15-1-2007. The appellant received grievous injuries and his left leg was amputated during treatment. The appellant moved an application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') to claim compensation of Rs.13,50,000/- on the ground that his monthly income was Rs.10,000/- and because of the accident and resultant • amputation he has suffered loss of income. 2. As the appellant is owner cum driver of the vehicle, the Insurance Company alone was arrayed as non-claimant. It is the defence of the Insurance Company that the claim petition is not maintainable because the appellant was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the / time of the accident. s^ •^a.. 3. After a detailed discussion on issue No.5, learned Claims Tribunal, in paragraphs-13 and 14 of the judgment has recorded a finding that the driving licence issued in favour of the appellant was expired on 2-12- 2005, however, an application along with required fee for renewal ofthe licence was submitted only on 27-1-2007 i.e. after about 12 days from the date of the accident. The Tribunal has thus found that on the date ofthe accident the appellant was not having a valid and effective driving licence. For this breach of insurance policy, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. Even otherwise, the liability of Insurance Company is by way of indemnifying the owner if the accident has taken placeon account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle. However, in the present case, the claimant is the driver cum owner of the vehicle. 4. In the matter of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,. Baroda , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an application under Section 163-A of the Act can be moved where annual income ofthe deceased/injured is less than Rs.40,000/-. 5. In the case in hand, the claimant has stated that his monthly income was Rs.10,000/-, therefore, for this reason also the claim petition was not maintainable. 6. There is yet another reason as to why the claim petition was not maintainable inasmuch as in the matter of Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that owner of the vehicle cannot move an application _ (2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 385 (20Q9) 13 Supreme Court Cases 710 Barve under section 163-A of the Act because under this provision primary liability is of the owner and the appellant in the present case being the owner of the vehicle cannot claim compensation against the Insurance Company. 7. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any substance in this appeal, which fails and is hereby dismissed ^j, - Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge