Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:42222 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 198 of 2020 1 - Manager, United Insurance Company 2nd Floor, Guru Kripa Tower, Vyapar Vihar , Opposite Amba Automobile, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Through Authorized Signatory, Manager T.P. Hub United India Insurance Company Limted , T.P. Hub / Divisional Office Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.. versus --- Appellant 1 - Smt. Manju Jha Wd/o Late Ajay Kumar Jha Aged About 42 Years Occupation Housewife, 2 - Minor Kumari Aayshu Jha D/o Late Ajay Kumar Jha Aged About 11 Years 3 - Minor Akshat Jha S/o Late Ajay Kumar Jha Aged About 9 Years Student No.2 and 3 both are Minor, Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Manju Jha, All are Resident Of C- 11, Aanandpuram Phase - 2, Junvani Road Kohka, Supela Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh...(Claimants), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Satish Kumar Singh S/o Late Subedar Singh Aged About 27 Years Occupation Driver , R/o Chanda, Police Station Dhavan Gola, District Patna Bihar , Present Address Kandoi Plant Matka, Tehsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 5 - Daljeet Singh Kalra S/o Kartar Singh Kalra Aged About 49 Years Occupation Singh Transporter Vehicle Owner R/o 78 Shanti Nagar , Ameri Road , Bilaspur Chhattisgarh..(Owner). --- Respondents For Appellant For Res. No.1 to 3 For Respondent No.5 : : : Mr. B.N. Nandey, Advocate Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.23 16:37:29 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 20/08/2025 1. Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the impugned award dated 31.08.2019, passed in Claim Case No.74 of 2017, whereby learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 by claimants/respondents No.1 to 3, in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.29,95,000/-, fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation on non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company/appellant. 2. Fact of accident caused by the offending vehicle (loader) due to rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No.1, resulting in death of Ajay Kumar Jha and insurer of offending vehicle being non-applicant No.3, is not in dispute. Appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal primarily on the ground that there was a breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy, offending vehicle was not duly registered at the time of accident, and that Non-Applicant No.1, who was driving the said vehicle, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence authorizing him to drive the class of vehicle involved in the incident. Therefore, this Court is not entering into the factual aspects of the case and is only considering the submission made by
Legal Reasoning
learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company. 3. Learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in allowing claim application and fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon it taking note of insurance policy (Ex.NA-1) overlooking the fact that claimants or owner of offending vehicle has not proved that offending 3 vehicle/loader was registered in the transport office. He submits that as the loader is motor vehicle, therefore, under the provisions of Section 39 of the Act of 1988 its registration was mandatory. Absence of registration will lead to breach of policy conditions. Owner of offending vehicle has not brought in record copy of registration certificate, hence, it will be presumed that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was not registered. He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal failed to take into consideration evidence of Suresh Singh Rajput (NAW-1), Investigating Officer, who admitted that initially at the time of seizure of offending vehicle, description of vehicle i.e. Modal Number, Engineer Number, Chassis Number has been mentioned differently, which was corrected after perusing invoice submitted before police by owner of offending vehicle. He contended that admission made by Investigating Officer of correction of description of vehicle recorded earlier would show that vehicle which is insured by appellant/Insurance Company has been implanted subsequently afterthought. Therefore, no liability can be fastened upon appellant/Insurance Company. He also submits that on the date of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not possessed with valid and effective driving license as he was possessing license authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle only whereas loader will fall under clause of miscellaneous and special type of vehicle and according to Section 10 of the Act of 1988, license is required with an authorization to drive motor vehicle of a specified description. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.5, owner of offending vehicle would submit that admittedly offending vehicle involved in the accident 4 is a loader. Accident occurred in factory premises. Type of vehicle which is involved in the accident is to be used in enclosed premises not open to public excess, therefore, registration of vehicle of such class is not mandatory required according to the Act of 1988. He next contended that even other grounds raised by learned counsel for appellant that driver of offending vehicle is not possessed with valid and effective driving license is not proved. Insurance Company has not lead any evidence in this regard by producing particulars of the license before the Claims Tribunal. Hence, this grounds is not available with appellant/Insurance Company, to raise before this Court at the stage of appeal. He also contended that from the evidence of Suresh Singh Rajput (NAW-1), Investigating Officer, it is apparent that initially he noted particular of vehicle like modal number, engine number and chassis number based on oral information supplied by person. There may be chances to give wrong description by some mistake, however, after perusing the invoice placed by owner after seizure, he corrected the same in police record. This witness has clarified the postilion as to why correction of particulars of vehicle was done in seizure memo. There is no error in finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3/claimants would support the award and submit that from bare perusal of insurance policy it is apparent that vehicle was insured by appellant/Insurance Company mentioning registration number of vehicle as CG-10-0001 and registration authority is mentioned as CG-10 Bilaspur. Vehicles of any kind which are registered within the District Transport Office, Bilaspur is provided number starting with C.G.-10, therefore, submission of 5 learned counsel for appellant that offending vehicle is not registered, is not correct on the face of policy as proved and produced by appellant/Insurance Company. He also submits that as the offending vehicle is a non-transport vehicle, therefore, also registration of vehicle is not necessary. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused record of claim case. 7. So far as the submission made by learned counsel for appellant that there was no registration of vehicle in accordance with provision under Section 39 of the Act of 1988 is concerned, true it is that non- applicants No.1 & 2 after receipt of notice, appeared before Claims Tribunal, they have submitted reply to claim application, however, they have not lead any evidence before learned Claims Tribunal. From copy of insurance policy, which is placed on record by non-applicant No.3 as Ex.NA-1 would show that it is a liability only policy issued for miscellaneous and special type of vehicles. In the policy, in the column of vehicle it is mentioned as CG.10-0001 and name of registering authority is also mentioned as C.G.-10 Bilaspur. 8. Learned counsel for appellant during course of argument has made submission that insurance policy was issued after perusal of documents in particular invoice submitted before it. When once appellant/Insurance Company after perusal of document produced by owner of offending vehicle for insuring it and in policy the registration of vehicle is mentioned as CG-10-0001, appellant/Insurance will not be permitted to raise grounds in this appeal that owner of offending vehicle failed to produce registration certificate of vehicle, therefore, 6 there was breach of policy conditions. C.G.-10 is mentioned in registration of vehicle, registered within the District Transport Office, Bilaspur, therefore, in view of documentary evidence available on record that too produced by Insurance Company, in its evidence, submission of learned counsel for appellant that offending vehicle was not registered with registering authority is not acceptable, accordingly it is repelled. 9. So far as the other grounds raised by learned counsel for appellant that driver of offending vehicle was not possessed with valid and effective driving license is concerned, copy of license is seized by police during investigation of criminal case, in final report also there is mention of seizure memo in the list of enclosures along with charge- sheet. Seizure memo is placed on record along with Ex.P-1 by which police seized the offending vehicle (loader), insurance policy and license in the name of Satish Kumar with validity up to 18.09.2036, year of issuance of license is mentioned as 2016. Copy of license is also forming part of Ex.P-1 i.e. charge-sheet filed by claimants along with claim application, which is certified copy issued under signature of Head Copyist, Copying Section, District Court Bemetara. License in the name of Satish Kumar its number is mentioned as C.G.-15- 20160005989, in seizure memo also, license number seized by police is also similar to that of the license number as mentioned in copy of the license available in record. Perusal of the license would show that it was issued authorizing persons named therein to drive light motor vehicle and motor cycle with gear. Arguments which is advanced by learned counsel for appellant is that non-applicant No.1 is not 7 authorized to drive the offending vehicle under license possessed by him. 10. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for appellant I find it appropriate to extract relevant provisions of the Act of 1988 which reads thus : “2(21) “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7500] kilograms; 2(47) “transport vehicle” means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle,” 11. Under definition of light motor vehicle, there is no mention of loader or excavator but it mentioned only to transport vehicle or omnibus, motor car, or tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. In the definition of light motor vehicle, the offending vehicle loader is not included, however, the description of loader is mentioned in the definition of construction equipments vehicle as defined under Rule 2 (cab) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1989’). 12. Section 10 of the Act of 1988 deals with form and contents of license to drive. The aforementioned provisions is important, therefore, it is extracted below for ready reference :- “10. Form and contents of licences to drive.—(1) Every learner’s licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under section 18, shall be in such 8 form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) A learner’s licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:— (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) [adapted vehicle]; (d) light motor vehicle; [(e) transport vehicle;] (i) road-roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description 13. In Sub-Section 2 (j) of Section 10 of the Act of 1988, there is mention of motor vehicle of a specified description, meaning thereby, motor vehicle which is not coming within Section 10 (2) (a to i) will fall within clause of Section 10 (2) (j) of the Act of 1988. The construction equipment vehicle has been stated to be non-transport vehicle under explanation clause appended to Rule 2 (cab) of the Rules of 1989. Rule 2(cab) of the Rules, 1989, reads as under :- “[(cab) "construction equipment vehicle" means a self- propelled machine with rubber tyred (including pneumatic tyred), rubber padded or rubber or steel drum wheel mounted compactor, wheeled hydraulic excavator, wheel loader, backhoe loader, skid-steer loader, dumper, motor grader, mobile crane, dozer and pavers with rubber track or rubber pads or wheeled pavers, fork lift truck, self-loading concrete mixer or self- propelled boom pumps, self-propelled concrete pumps or any other construction equipment vehicle or combination thereof primarily designed to perform earth 9 moving, excavation, loading, transportation, drilling, spreading, compacting or trenching of earth, rock, other materials, off-highway operations in mining, industrial undertaking, irrigation and general construction but modified and manufactured with "on or off" or "on and off" highway capabilities. Explanation for the purpose of this clause.-- a construction equipment vehicle or earth moving vehicle shall be a non-transport vehicle the driving on the road of which is incidental to the main off-highway function and for a short duration at a speed not exceeding fifty kilometres per hour, but such vehicle does not include other purely off-highway construction equipment vehicle designed and adopted for use in any enclosed premises, factory or mine other than road network, not equipped to travel on public roads on their own power for example slip form pavers, concrete pavers, cold milling machines, cold recycler machines and any construction equipment vehicle or earth moving vehicle with crawlers or metal track, for example, tracked excavator or excavator with legs are not considered to be falling under the scope of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, as they are not permitted to run on public roads;] 14. In the case at hand, the offending vehicle is a loader, which is a vehicle of specified description. Upon conjoint reading of definition of Section 2 (21), 2 (47) and definition of construction equipment vehicle as provided under the Rules of 1989, it is apparent that offending vehicle/loader is a motor vehicle of specified description, therefore, driver driving the said vehicle should possess a separate driving license authorizing him to drive the motor vehicle of specified description. 15. In reply to the claim application, non-applicant No.3/Insurance 10 Company has taken specific plea that on the date of accident driver of offending vehicle was not possessed valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 though appeared before the Claims Tribunal submitted reply, however, not lead any evidence. They have not disputed copy of license which is filed in support of claim application by claimants to be not copy of license issued in the name of non-applicant No.1. Before this Court also, no specific plea has been raised with regard to license forming part of record of the claim case and it is not a case herein that copy of license which is available in record of claim case is in any manner disputed by Insurance Company to be not driving license issued by competent licensing authority as mentioned therein. But before this Court it is argued that even if the license which is forming part of record is accepted to be issued in favour of non-applicant No.1, it does not authorize non-applicant No.1 to drive offending vehicle, therefore, to appreciate the submission of learned counsel for appellant, copy of license which is available in the record is perused by this Court and upon perusal of which, it is prima-facie apparent that there is no endorsement in the license issued in the name of non-applicant No.1 authorizing him to drive the motor vehicle of a specified description. 16.
Decision
In view of the above discussions I am of the considered view that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was not possessed with valid and effective driving license authorizing him to drive the motor vehicle of a specified description. Therefore, it is a case that offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 without license. As this Court 11 upon appreciation of documentary and oral evidence available on record came to conclusion that non-applicant No.1 was not possessed with valid and effective driving license authorizing him to drive the offending vehicle loader, it is held that offending vehicle was plied in breach of policy conditions. Finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal on Issue No.2 that breach of policy conditions to be not proved recording a finding that non-applicant No.1 was possessed with license to drive the offending vehicle is not sustainable and accordingly it is set-aside and it is held that offending vehicle was being plied by a person not possessing valid license authorizing him to drive call of vehicle which he was driving, therefore, there was breach of policy conditions. Accordingly Appellant/Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability to indemnify the insured. 17. Now the liability to satisfy the award will be upon non-applicant No.2/owner of offending vehicle. As the Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability to satisfy the award on the ground that non-applicant No.1 was not possessed with effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle, taking support from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Vs. Swaran Singh, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 and in case of Shamanna & Anr. Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2018) 9 SCC 650, appellant/Insurance Company/non-applicant No.3 is directed to first pay the entire amount of compensation and thereafter to recover the same from respondent No.5/non-applicant No.2, owner of offending vehicle in accordance with law. It is made clear that the appellant/Insurance Company can 12 recover the amount of compensation so paid in terms of observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan, (2004) 13 SCC 224 in same execution proceeding. Other conditions of award shall remain intact. 18. For the aforementioned discussions, this appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated here-in-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram