"»"-fl®;w!STa]M;f'^ffV"^''''':'":"'';^!-;:'*ffcsS^ FEES;'?31 L' IN THE mpH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CC.G.1 M.A.(C) No. 7. .r.1.. . OF 2007 (APPEAL VALUED AT Rs.1559.880 /-) •l''ii¥|ssiy% APPEAL UNDER SECTION 17? OF THE MOTORVEmCLES ACTS. 1988. APPELLANT (TSLON-APPLICANT N0.2) (APPLIGANTNO.l) (APPLICANT N0.2) ^' United India Insurance Company Through: Divisional Divisional- Limited, Its Manager, Office, Raipur, Tah. & Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Smt. Dhirja Bai Wd/o-Late Lalu V^ Ram @ Lalluram Mankar, Aged- about 45 years, Ku.Madhuri D/0- Late Lalu Ram @ Lalluram Mankar, Aged- about 20 years, (APPLICANT N0.3) (APPLICANT N0.4) (APPLICANT N05) ^ / ^- :3. Umesh Kumar Mankar, S/0- Late Lalu Ram @ Lalluram Mankar, Aged- about 19 years, 4., HiteshKumar Mankar,S/0-Late Lalu Ram @ Lalluram'Mankar, Aged- about 16 years, 5. Sri Dular Singh, S/O-Late Kanhau-am Mankar, aged about-75years, All are R/0-Bhandarapara Daunda,P.S.-Daunda, Tahsil- Balod, Distt.-Durg (CG) (NON-APPLICANT N01) 6, ShivPratap Singh, S/0-Ramchandra Singh Rajput, aged about-30 years, R/0-vill.- Durag Kondal, P.S.& Tahsil- Bhaupratappur, Distt.-Kanker (CG) (NON-APPLICANTN N0.2) :7. Rakesh Singh, S/0-Ramchandra Singh, <- aged about-34 years, R/0-vill.- Durug Kondal, P.S.& Tahsil- Bhaupratappur, Distt.-Kanker(CG) HI6M CXMKT OF CHH^TriS6< H_AT_M.l.ASB-« OIVIStON BENCM: HON'BLE MR. X.M.QU&DUSI & HON'BLE MR.6ULAM MINMAIUDMN. Jj M.AJcl No.471/2007 ABfiellant Vs Respondents United India Insuramse Ce. Ltd. Smt. Dhirja Bai & otheps Presents Mr. Dashroth 6upta, Adwcate for the appellant. Mr. S.IC Suhu, Advocaf'e for resp<»ident-CI<MflBunt& None for other respondents though served. (Olral) (2r" June. 2011) I.M. Cteldtei. J; 1. Challenge in the instant appeat, filed by the appetkurt'-Irwurance Company, is to the award dat-ed 13.11.2006 passed by the leorned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Batod, District Durg (C.6.) (for short the Claim* Tribunai') in Claim Case No.Zl/ZOOS. .j 2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, we that the respondent No.l *o S-ctaimanta hwe filed a clalm pet-ition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (nr short- the Act, 1988') before the Cloims Tribunai claiming compensort-ion of Rs.lS,19,0(W/- for the death of deceased Laluram, who was husband & father of the claimants respectively, In a motor oucident whieh took place on 29.12.2003 near Village Donda, when the Mfftodor bearing registration number C607-ZB- 0210, which WCB driven in rash ond negligent manner by ttw non-appticant No.2, dashed scooter of the deceused as d resuH- he sustained grievous injuries and died. The claimants hnve ctaimed compensation on the ground thot they were dependent on the deceased, who waa sote eaming member in fdnnily, and due to his death, they have suffered loss of income. 3. Learned Claims Tribunal, ctfter taking note of ewdence available on record, altowed the claint cfiplicotion, awarded compensation of Rs.lfi,39,880/ to the ctaimants and saddled responsibility of paying compenart'ion on the oppetlont herein. '^.T '». v&,'...s!f! 'iSSWS3Si f ^Sigpa-^ ^ %, %,^/^ ~%-^sy ^ 4. Learhed counsel for the q)peltant has coi}tended thaff driver of the offending vehicte was not having vatid <md effective driving iicence on the dat-e f accident i.e. 29.12.2003. 5. We have heard leamed counset for the pcrt-ies and peruaed the recor'ds of the Ctaims Tribunal as also the impugned award. 6. Perusal of copy of driving licence (Ex.0-1) fited by drlver of offending vehicte namely Shiv Protap Singh (NAW-1) reveals that he was authorized to drive light motor vehicles for a period of 20 years i.e. from 23J1.2000 to 22.11.2020. Latep on, he was authorized to drive transport vehicles and heavy goods vehfcles for a period of three years ije. from 18.7.2008 to 17.7.2(XB. But the dat-e of authorizotien to drive transport- vehicles is niuch krt-er than the dcrte of ocddent and in this regard, the appellant-Insurance Company has produced Siyarom Dhruv (NAW-3), Assist-ont 6rade-II, R.T.O. Office, Durg, who h<M stat-ecl that driving licence issued on 23.11.2000 to said Shiv Pratap Singh was valld for o period of 20 years ond he could not have driven the Mait-ador !n queslion on the strength of licence issued to him. 1-te has further stofted that- till 29.t2.2003 licence to drive commerciat vehicles has not been issued in favour of saad Shiv Prat-ap Singh. NAW-2 Kapit Markcm, Assistant Srade-II, R.T.0. Office, Durg has also stated that Motador bearing reglstration number C607/ZB/0210 is registered os commerciol vehicte aind the person possessing licence of light motor vehicles only connat- drive the commerclal vehicle. Penisat of the inair-once policy fited by the o^petlcnt also shows that it is a package policy for goods currying commerciat vehicle (open), which was wlid on the relevant date. 7. Section 14 (2) of the Act, 1,998 provides that driving licence tesued or renewed under the Aet' shall, in case of a llcence to drive a tronsport vdiicte, be effective for a period of three years, <md in ca»of any oither Iteence, if The person obtaining the licence, elther origlnally or on renecal thenof, has not. attained the <ge of fifty years on the dote of isaie er, <w the ease moy, renewal thereof- be effective for u period of twenty years from the date of such Issue or renewat; or until the date on whlch such person ottains the age of fifty years or if the person referrael to in sub-clouse (1), has o*t<dned the age of flfty yeors wi the date of issue or as the case may be, renewat thweof, be effect'ive, on puyment of such fee as may be prescribed, for a period of five years from the date of such issue or renewal. —- ' /"'"'•' ^ 8. In view of the abow, it is manifest that offending vehicle wss regi»t-ered as 'commercial vehicle' and the licence issued to the driver of offendlng vehicte was for a period of 20 years, meaning therebythe Jicence is issued for the purpose of a vehicte other than o transport vehicle as had it been gronted for tmnsport vehicle, the tenure thereof coukl not hcwe exceeded to three years, as per Section 14 (2) (a) of the Act, 1988. Thus, it «aibe ssfefy held that there wca breach of conditions of insuronce policy and hence the appelkmt-Insurance Company cannol- be held tiable to pay compensation. / 9. For the foreaoing reasons, we allow this oppeal, avt aside the part- of the impugned award by which the appellant-Insuronce Company has been held Bable to pay compensat-ion including findlng given on Isaue No.6 ond hold that liability to pay compensation would be of owner of Matador beoring registnrt-icn iiumbw C&07-ZE-6245. It is also directed -ttiat if the cunount depesited by the appellant herein has not been disbursed so f<r to the ckdmant, the nn>etl<ait shall be allowed to withdnnr the same. However, if the aume has been withdrcnmn by the respondent-ctainwnts, it wilf be open ^w the appellont to recover the same from respondent ^to.7-owner of vehicte and for that purpese, the principles laid dotim by the Hon'ble Apex Gourt in tte mtrtter of Nflrt'lonal Insurance Company Vs. Swarn Siigh & others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297, which is quoted below, shall be followed. "Where on adjudication of the clolm under the Act the Tribuntri arrives ut u conclusion that the insurer has satisfuctorily provea its defence in accordonce with the provisions of Section 149 (2) read with sub-seetion (7), us interpreted by this Court' above, the Tribunai can direct thut the insurer is lioble to be reimbursed by the inaured for the compensution and other amounts which it haa baen compeiiecf te jiay to the third party under the aunrd of the Tribunal. Such determinat'ion of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceabie aid the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverabte on a certificffta issued by the Tribunal to the Cbllector in the scane manner under Section 174 of the Act as arreca-s of tand revenue. The certificat-e will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as re<)uired by sub- section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awurded in fuvour of the insurer wit'nin thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the Tribunal." 10. Certified copy as per rutes. -—- Sd;- 1. 81 judge Sd/- G.Minhajjudin Judge