HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: HON»BLBI.M. QUDDUSI fls HON'BLB N. K. AGRAWAL, JJ MISC. APPBAL (Ct N0.991 OF 2009 Vs. APPEARANCB: Mr. Saurabh Sharma, counsel for the appeUaat. None for the respondents despite service ofnotice. QRDBR^tORALJ (07.10.2010) Per I.M. QUDDUSI, J Heard. 2. This appeal has been filed by fhe Insuraace Coiiipaay agamst fhe impugned award dated 31.3.2009 passed by fhe APPELLANT The New India Assuraace Conxpaoy Liinited, through Divisional Maaager fhe New India Assuraace Conipaay Lunited, BUaspur, 2nd Ploor, Rama Trade Centre, Opposite Rajeev Plaza, Bus-Stand, Bilaspur (C.G). RESPONDBNTS 1 Rajesh Nishad, s/o Shri Ramkhila waa Nishad, r/o vUlage Firda, P,S, Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G). J 2 AnU Rohra, s/o Late Shri Meehamal Rohra, r/o House No.B/212, Sunder Nagar, PoUce Station - D.D. Nagar, Raipur (C.G). 3 Radho Sonaai, aged about 55 years, s/o Gaasa Sonard. 4 Sukaati Sonaoi, aged about 50 years, w/o Radho Sonaai. 5 Puni Sonani, widow of Late Dhaaesar Sonaai, aged about 20 years, Respondents 3 to 5 r/o Moti Nagar, near AnjaU Kiraaa Dukaa, Raipur, Tahsil and District R_aipur (C.G). VIII Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribimal (F.T.C) Raipur, in Claim Case No.63/2007 whereby fhe leamed Tribunal ha^ awarded fhe conipensation ofRs.3,95,000/- to fhe clatmaats aad fastened fhe Uability on the Insuraace Coxnpaay, 3. The brief facts of fhe case as per the version of fhe claimaats are as under: (i) That on 11.09.2006 deceased Dhaaesar Senaiu was retumiag to his hoine, at fhat tixne near at Pachpedi Naka ia front of Dhabha^ one Truck bearing Regn. No. C.G. 04/Z.C. coming from Saatoshi Nagar which was beiag driven rashly and negUgenffy by its driver/respondent no.l dashed the deceased as a result of which Dhanesar sustained serious iajuries and he was adniitted in Rama Krishna Hospital where fhe doctors declared him dead. The claimants have claiaied total conipensation of Rs.17 lalchs froia fhe non-appUcaats, (ii) Respondent no-2/owner filed his written stateinent statmg fhat he was holdiag valid aad effective driviag Ucense to drive the offeuding vehicle. The vehicle was duly iasiired by fhe appeUaat Conipaay, fherefore, he is not liable to iadeinntfy fhe amount clauned. (m) The appeUaat/iasuraace compaay filed its wntten statenient pleadiag fhat fhe driver was not haviag valid aad effective driviag Ucense to drive fhe offendiag vehicle aad fhe vehicle has been used ia breach of terms aad condiUons of the msurance PoUcy, therefore, the Insurance Conipaay is not liable to uideianify the aaioiuit claioied. (iv) The clamiaats have examiaed Radho Sonaai, fafher of deceased (one of the clamiaats) as A.W.l and one Duryodhaa Nag (A.W.2) whereas fhe iasuraace Coaipaiiy has exaoiiaed oue Rajesh Kuinar Bhargav (License Clerk, R.T.O., Raipur) as N.A.W.l.and Lakhpati as N.A.W.2 ia rebuttal. (3) After he&mg fhe learaed counsel for the pardes aad considering the material on record, the learaed Tribunal held fhat fhe accident has occurrcd due to rash aad negUgent driving of respondent no. 1 ia which Daaesar died aiid fhe clamiaats are entiUed for coinpensation ofRs.3,95,000/-. It has been further held by fhe Tribunal fhat fhe breach of iasuraace poUcy was not estabMshed aad fhe AppeUaat has fatted to estabUsh fhat fhe driver was not haviag valid and effective driviag license. (4) Mr. Saurabh Sharma, learaed counsel for fhe appeUaat contends fhat the msiiraace Compaay is not Uable to pay conipensation because of fhe reason that fhe driver of fhe ofiFendiag vehicle Rajesh Nishad who has caused fhe accident was not haviag vaUd aad effective driving license at the time of accident. (5) We have perused fhe records of the Tribunal and have seen fhe stateinent of License Clerk of the oflGice of RTO, Raipur, naoiely Rajesh Kuniar Bhargav (N.A.W.l) who has inter-alia stated that he had brought R.B, Series Register of 2004. Accordiag to hiai, it is iacorrect to say fhat R. B. Series Register is not the Hcense register. He himsetf stated that it is a comiputerized register aad R.B.No.32871 was issued to Rajesh Nishad, son ofRam Khilawaa Nishad on 12.4.1994 for driving fhe heavy vehicle goods and it has been entered iato Coiaputer Register which was frained ia 2004. A Xerox copy of fhe driviag Ucense produced on record also shows the number ofthe drivmg Ucense as DL.No. R/15233/R/94 aad Work Oider No.RB-32871 dated 28th August 2004 and when itwas rcnewed ia the year on 11.4.2001 and fhereafter on 11.4.2004 fhe numiber was m.entioned as 32871, R/15233/R/94, Therefore, in our opioion, fhere is no dispute fhat the driver of fhe vehicle m question was haviag eflfective aad vaUd driviag license on the date of accident which took place on 11.9.2006. The appellaat has also filed a Xerox copy of the computerized driviag Mcense of Driver Rajesh Nishad which shows that fhe dupUcate Ucense was issued as RB-32871 aad the original Ucense No. R/15233/ R/94 aad fhe or^giaal date of issue has been inentloned as 12.4.1994 and fhe new renewal on 22.10.2007. (6) In view of the above/ fhe contention raised by fhe appeUaat fhat fhe dnver of fhe vehicle ia question was not having vaUd and effective driviag Ucense, is not at aU sustamable. (7) In fhe result, fhe appeal faUs aad is dismissed. No order as to cost(s), Sd/- ^.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge ^/