M.A.(CINO. ^^^ v. RBSPONDENTS

Mohammad Safir, aged about 25 years, R/o Patna (Samapara) P.S, Patna, District Korea (C.G.) (Driver ofthe alleged vehicle) Manager Reliance General Insurance Coinpany Bhop'al (M.P.). Insurer of alleged vehicle Naveen Singh, S/o Dalsai, aged about 30 years. Chandrawati, W/o Naveen Singh, aged about 25 years. Respondent no. 3 & 4 both are resident of village Basanpai-a (Sarbhoka) P.S. Patna, District Korea (C.G.) CLAIMANTS MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S IT^OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988. ^ •?. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhav Manohar Sanre "LO M.A. No. 496 of 2012 APPELLANT Naseem Ahraed Versus RESPONDENTS Mohammad Shakil & others MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT .* Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents No. 1, 3 and 4. .i Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. ORAL ORDER (15.02.2013) Heard. This appeal is filed by fhe appellant/owner under Section (2) 173 ofthe MotorVehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") against the award dated 08.02.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Koria (Baikunthpur), (for short "the Tribunal") in Claim CaseNo. 61/2009. By the impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the (3) claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Act and .awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, to the claimants for the death of their son, aged 6 years. The Tribunal, however, exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability arising out of the accident on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the valid and effective driving licencce. It was held oA f~l Q- that offending vehicle was coininercial vehicle, known as 'pick up van', whereas driver was having havening licence to drive LMV. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on I am inclined to dismiss this (4) perusal of the record of the case, appeal in limine calling no interference in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. It is a death case of a child aged 6 years, who died in (5) vehicular accident. The deceased Vikky Kumar alias Guddu was a minor son of the claimants. At the tirae of accident, he was aged about 6 years and studying in class- II in a school. The Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,00,OOO/- towards conipensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. (6) With an object to examine the.-.matter as to whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding corapensation to the claimants (parents), in a total sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, I have gone through the judicial precedents on the issue of award of compensation in child death cases or I may say cases where young boy/girl who expired in their'youth and while studying having no income at their own, reported in 2001 ACJ 160 and other decisions, wherein their Lordships of Supreme Court while allowing the appeal filed by the New India Insurance Company awarded to claimants a sura of Rs. 1,80,000/- for the death of a child aged 9 years. This Court, taking note of the above judicial precedents of (7) Suprenie Court has decided various child death cases and either upheld -or awarded compensadon in lump sum to the extent of Rs. l.SS.OOO/- and more. Therefore, in my opinion the compensation which the Tribunal has awarded to the claimant is a just, reasonable and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these types of cases in relation to several heads taken note of supra with reference to evidence brought on record by the parties. G^ ! 1 ^ l<";agii | ^•SM il? » ^•^y Indeed, in such cases, no fixed and any stadc formula as (8) such is provided for determining the compensation and the same is required to be determined on the basis of totality of evidence adduced and the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration as mentioned supra. It is on this basis, Courts have to work out award of reasonable conipensation to the claiinant. (9) Company is concerned that So far as the quesdon of exoneration of the Insurance finding also does not call interference because learned meniber of the Tribunal has rightly in Oriental applied the law laid down by the Supreine Court Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol & Ors. JT 2009 (2) SC 587. It is in this case Their Lordships held that if the offending vehicle is a commercial vehicle then the driver .'must possess the driving there must be an license to drive such vehicle and that endorsement on the licence authorizing the driver to drive such speeified vehicle. It is only then the Uability can be fastened upon the Insuranpe Company. In thi§ case a categorical finding has been recorded by the (10) Tribunal that the vehicle in question was a commercial vehicle, whereas the driver of the vehicle was not having a licence to drive such comraercial vehicle but he was having a licence to drive light motor vehicle.(LMV). In this view of the matter, I do not agree to argument advanced by the learned counsel appellant/owner, and is of the view that the Tribunal was right in holing that since the driver was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and therefore the insured committed the policy condition resulting in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability. Indeed, the issue involved in breach of this case is squarely covered by the decision of Supreme Court rendered in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol & Ors. . ; (supra). .(11) As noted supra, it is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was registered as a bransport vehicle. It was a "pick up van . It is c^ . ••^"-pik. ryi- also not in dispute that the driver of the vehicle was having a licence to drive only LMV and Cab. A driver holding a licence to drive LMV and Cab cannot drive a "transport vehicle" and he must have separate licence for the same as has been held by Suprerae Court in the case of Angad Kol (supra) or there has to be a proper endorsement to drive such vehicle in his licence. It was not so in this case. I therefore, find no good ground to differ from. opinion expressed by the Tribunal on this issue. I accordingly uphold the finding recorded by fhe Tribunal so (12) far as liability part, as also the award of compensation, concerned and find no merit in this appeal filed by owner of the offending vehicle. The appeal filed by the owner thus fails and is hereby dismissed. (13) No cost. Thakur Sd/- Abhay Manohar Sapre Judge