1 - Smt. Pushpa Verma W/o Shri Pramod Kumar Verma Aged About 40 Years v. 1
Case Details
-1- Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH 2025:CGHC:2448 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 446 of 2022 1 - Smt. Pushpa Verma W/o Shri Pramod Kumar Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Mendra, Post Office Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Pin Code-495001(Owner Of Tractor No. Cg-10d-8775 And Trolley No. Cg-10a- 8497) --- Appellant/owner versus 1 - Smt. Dukhni Bai W/o Late Shri Lakheswar Kaiwarth Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Rainpur (Karra), Post Office - Jali, Police Station Ratanpur, Pin Code - 495442 2 - Latelram Kewat, S/o Late Shri Guharam, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Rainpur (Karra), Post Office - Jali, Police Station Ratanpur, Pin Code -495442 3 - Smt. Kaveri Bai, W/o Shri Latelram Kaiwarth, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Rainpur (Karra), Post Office - Jali, Police Station Ratanpur, Pin Code -495442 4 - Ku. Anju Kaiwarth, D/o Late Shri Lakheswar Kaiwarth Aged About 12 Years Minor Through His Mother Smt. Dukhni Bai, W/o Late Shri Lakheswar Kaiwarth R/o Village Rainpur (Karra), Post Office - Jali, Police Station Ratanpur, Pin Code - 495442 5 - Surya Kumar Kewat, S/o Late Shri Lakheswar Kaiwarth Aged About 10 Years Minor Through His Mother Smt. Dukhni Bai, W/o Late Shri Lakheswar Kaiwarth R/o Village Rainpur (Karra), Post Office - Jali, Police Station Ratanpur, Pin Code - 495442 6 - Rajkumar Kaushik, S/o Shri Ram Lal Kaushik, Aged About 45 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Ward No. 1, Parshada, Post Office - Tifra, Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Pin Code -495001 (Driver Of Tractor No. Cg-10-D- 8775 And Trolley No. Cg-10-A-8497) -2-
Legal Reasoning
7 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office Rama Trade Centre, First Floor, Opposite Rajeev Plaza, Near Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Pin Code -495001 (Insurance Company Of Tractor No. Cg- --- Respondents 10-D-8775 And Trolley No. Cg-10-A-8497) along with MAC No. 509 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Dukhni Bai W/o Late Shree Lakheshwar Kaivart Aged About 33 Years R/o Village- Rainpur (Karra), Post Office - Jali, Thana - Ratanpur, Tehsil - Kota, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Pin Code No. 495442 2 - Latelram Kaivart Shree Guharam Kaivart Aged About 65 Years R/o Village- Rainpur (Karra), Post Office - Jali, Thana - Ratanpur, Tehsil - Kota, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Pin Code No. 495442 3 - Smt. Kaveri Bai W/o Latelram Kaivart Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Rainpur (Karra), Post Office - Jali, Thana - Ratanpur, Tehsil - Kota, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Pin Code No. 495442 4 - Ku. Anju Kaivart D/o Late Shree Lakheshwar Kaivart Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Dukhni Bai W/o Late Lakheshwar Kaivart, R/o Village- Rainpur (Karra), Post Office - Jali, Thana - Ratanpur, Tehsil - Kota, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Pin Code No. 495442 5 - Surya Kumar Kaivart S/o Late Lakheshwar Kaivart Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Dukhni Bai W/o Late Lakheshwar Kaivart, R/o Village- Rainpur (Karra), Post Office - Jali, Thana - Ratanpur, Tehsil - Kota, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Pin Code No. 495442 ---Appellants/Claimants Versus 1 - Rajkumar Kaushik Shree Ram Lal Kaushik Aged About 45 Years Profession - Driver, R/o - Ward No. 01 Parsada, Post Officer - Tifra, Thana Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)...... (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G.10/d./8775 And Trolley No. C.G.10/a./8497). Pin Code 495001 2 - Smt. Pushpa Verma W/o Pramod Kumar Verma Aged About 37 Years R/o Village - Mendra, Post Office Sakri, Tahsil - Takhatpur And District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Pin Code 495001 ...... (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G.10/d./8775 And Tralley No. C.G.10/a./8497). 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Rama Trade Center, 1st -3- Floor, In Front Of Rajiv Plaza, Near - Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Pin Code 495001 ...... (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G.10/d./8775 And Tralley No. C.G.10/a./8497). ... Respondents For Appellant/Owner in MAC No.446/2022 For Appellants/Claimants in MAC No.509/2022 : Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate : Mr. A.L. Singhroul, Advocate For respective respondents Advocate and Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Advocate : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.01.2025 1) Heard. 2) Both these appeals have been preferred against the award dated 15.12.2021 passed by the learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.518 of 2019. 3) The facts of the present case are that on 29.01.2019, the deceased Lakheshwar Kaiwart was going from Village - Rainpur to Village-Chichirda, Bilaspur (C.G.) on his motorbike at about 6:00 p.m. near LCIT college, Bilaspur (C.G.). The driver of the tractor bearing registration No. C.G.- 10-D- 9775 and trolley bearing registration No. C.G.-10 A8497 driving it rashly and negligently dashed the motorbike of the deceased and consequently, he sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to hospital and during the course of treatment, he died. 4) Claimant No.1 is the wife of the deceased, Claimants No.2 & 3 are parents and Claimants No.4 & 5 are children of the deceased. They filed a claim -4- case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs.86,00,000/- interalia on the ground that at the time of the death, the age of the deceased was 33 years and he was a driver. It is pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.50,000/- as a driver and Rs.60,000/- from agriculture. 5) The driver and owner of the vehicle filed their reply. They stated that the deceased himself was negligent. It is also pleaded that three persons were traveling on a motorbike and the claimants have exaggerated their claim. 6) The Insurance Company filed its reply and denied the contents of the application. It was stated that no accident was caused by the offending tractor. It was also pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license. The plea with regard to the absence of a permit and fitness was also taken. 7) Learned Claims Tribunal after appreciation of evidence held that the deceased died on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. It was further held that on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license. The learned Tribunal rightly fastened liability upon the driver and owner and directed the Insurance Company to make the payment of compensation of Rs.19,85,936/- with a stipulation to pay and recover. 8) In MAC No.446 of 2022, Mr. Kale, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle would submit that the driving license -5- in favour of the offending vehicle was issued by the Regional Transport Authority and it was valid from 20.11.1995 to 19.11.2015. He would further submit that the driver of the offending vehicle moved an application for renewal of his driving license which was renewed on 30.03.2019 and was valid up to 29.03.2022 and for the Non-Transport vehicle, it was valid up to 19.10.2024. He would contend that a valid driving license was issued in favour of the driver of the offending vehicle and later on, it was renewed by the competent authority, therefore, it would be deemed that there was a valid driving license in favour of the driver from 2015 till the date of the accident. He would further contend that the driver was appointed by the present appellant/owner of the tractor after recording its satisfaction as the driver showed him his driving license and there was no occasion for the appellant/owner to doubt the genuineness of such a driving license. He would also contend that the appellant/owner of the vehicle in his deposition has stated so. It is further contended that the witness examined by the Insurance Company has also accepted the fact that there was a valid driving license in favour of the driver of the offending vehicle till 2015 and later on, it was renewed on 30.03.2019. He would argue that the officer of the Regional Transport Authority has also affirmed these facts. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed an error of law in fastening liability upon the owner and driver of the vehicle. He would further argue that the liability may be fastened with the Insurance Company. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rishi Pal Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. -6- passed in Civil Appeal No.4919 of 2022 and Nirmala Kothari Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, passed in Civil Appeal Nos.1999-2000 of 2020. 9) In MAC No.509 of 2022, Mr. Singroul, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the deceased was a driver. He would further submit that the photocopy of the driving license was produced before the learned Tribunal but his income has been assessed by the learned Tribunal as a layman to the tune of Rs.8,710/- per month. He would contend that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kala Devi Vs. Bhagwan Das Chouhan and others, reported in 2015 (2) SCC 271 has held that a person who is a driver would be treated as a skilled labour. He would further contend that as per the own pleading of the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from his profession. He would lastly submit that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal may be modified accordingly. 10) Mr. Shrivastava, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Kale and Mr. Singroul. He would submit that the driving license issued in favour of the driver of the offending vehicle was valid up to 19.11.2015. He would further submit that according to the provisions of Section 15(1) & (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the holder of a driving license should apply before the authority for renewal of the driving license 30 days prior to the date of its expiry. He would contend that the driver of the offending vehicle approached the Regional Transport Authority after the date of the accident and the driving license was renewed -7- from 30.03.2019 and on the date of the accident, there was no valid driving license in favour of the driver. He would further contend that the owner of the offending vehicle in his reply has not stated anywhere that after due satisfaction, the driver of the offending vehicle was appointed. It is also not stated that the driving license was shown by the driver to the appellant/owner and there was no reason to doubt its genuineness. He would state that though the appellant/owner has deposed in evidence but the evidence beyond pleading is not admissible. 11) With regard to the income of the deceased, Mr. Shrivastava would submit that the claimants have nowhere stated about the vehicle which was being driven by the deceased. It is also not stated how many days in a month, the deceased used to drive the vehicle. He would contend that there is no evidence in this regard, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased to Rs.8,710/-. 12) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 13) Admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license on the date of the accident i.e. on 29.01.2019. The driving license was issued in his favour and it was valid from 20.11.1995 till 19.11.2015. Ex. D/3, the renewed driving license would show that it was renewed on 30.03.2019 and was valid up to 29.03.2022 and for a Non-Transport vehicle, it was valid up to 19.10.2024. This means thereby, on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving -8- license. 14) The owner of the offending vehicle in his evidence has stated that the fact of a valid driving license was verified by the driver of the offending vehicle but in reply, there is no such averment. It is a well-settled principle of law that the evidence beyond pleading is not admissible. Therefore, any statement or deposition made by the owner in this regard would not be admissible. 15) In the matter of Rishi Pal Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that as the driver was employed by the owner of the vehicle after checking his driving license and if the owner is satisfied that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, it is not expected from the owner thereafter to verify the genuineness of the driving license. Relevant para 10 is reproduced herein below:- “10. The owner of the vehicle is expected to verify the driving skills and not run to the licensing authority to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver. Therefore, once the owner is satisfied that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, it is not expected from the owner thereafter to verify the genuineness of the driving license issued to the driver.” In the present case, there is no pleading with regard to the fact that the owner of the vehicle checked the driving license of his driver and thereafter, he was deployed. This stand has been taken for the first time before this Court. 16) In the matter of Nirmala Kothari (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court fastened liability with the Insurance Company and granted liberty to the -9- Insurance Company to recover the amount from the appellant/owner. The relevant para 12 held as under:- “12. On facts, in the instant case, the Appellant/Complainant had employed the Driver, Dharmendra Singh as driver after checking his driving licence. The driving licence was purported to have been issued by the licencing authority, Sheikh Sarai, Delhi, however, the same could not be verified as the concerned officer of the licencing authority deposed that the record of the licence was not available with them. It is not the contention of the Respondent/ Insurance Company that the Appellant/complainant is guilty of willful negligence while employing the driver. The driver had been driving competently and there was no reason for the Appellant/Complainant to doubt the veracity of the driver’s licence. In view of above facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment is not liable to be sustained and is hereby set aside. The appeals accordingly stand allowed. The respondent/ Insurance Company is held liable to indemnify the appellant.” In the present case also, the learned Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation and thereafter, recover it from the owner. 17) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference in the award passed in MAC No.446 of 2022. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the appellant/owner is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. 18) With regard to the appeal preferred by the claimants for enhancement, the claimants failed to prove the fact that the deceased was employed by someone to drive the vehicle, days of working in a month, payment, wages etc., therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly assessed the monthly income to the tune of Rs.8,710/- per month. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to -10- interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to the notional income of the deceased. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the claimants in MAC No.509 of 2022 is also dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha