Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:33150 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1168 of 2019 1 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager Station Road, Parakh Bahwan, Durg Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Versus ... Appellant 1 - Jagjeet Tiwari S/o Kaliprasad Tiwari Aged About 38 Years L.I. G. -I Qurter No. 238 ,239 Near Cricket Ground, Jamul Bhilai, Police Sation Jamul, Tahsil Adh District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Gurujeet Singh S/o Dlaveer Singh Aged About 23 Years R/o Lig 80, Housing Board Battis Acre, Bhlai, Police Station Jamul, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh,., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Yogesh Mukel Prasad Dave S/o Late Mukul Prasad Aged About 58 Years R/o Qtr. No. 183, Street No. 13, Shanti Nagar, Bhilai Police Station Supela, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
MAC No. 1168/2019 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate along with Mr. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Ravi Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Pravesh Sahu, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge 15/07/2025 Order On Board 1. Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the liability to pay the amount of compensation of Rs. 3,15,818/- fastened SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 upon it by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 23.02.2019 in Claim Case No. 122/2014. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 19.04.2013 at around 08:20 P.M. when the applicant was returning to his home on his motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 07 LK 2684 and reached near Sector 32, Bhilai, one Car bearing registration no. CG 07 MA 8886 (henceforth referred to the offending vehicle) driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the applicant and caused accident. In the said accident, he suffered serious injuries over his person and was taken to hospital for treatment where the applicant took treatment as inpatient from 20.04.2013 to 29.04.2013 in Sector -9 Hospital, Bhilai and thereafter, from 29.04.2013 to 05.05.2013 in Visharad Hospital, Raipur. Subsequent to the said accident, an F.I.R. was registered against the Respondent No. 2 bearing Crime No. 106/2013, P.S. Jamul, District – Durg for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The appellant/claimant filed a claim application before the learned Claims Tribunal pleading therein that due to the said accident caused by the offending vehicle, he suffered grievous injuries on his person resulting in permanent disability. He was only 38 years of age on the date of incident, was working on the post of Peon in the District & Sessions Court, Durg and earning Rs. 13,611/- per month. Due to disability suffered by him, he is facing difficulties in doing his day to day activities and claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- from the non-applicants. 3 4. There was no representation on behalf of the Non-Applicant No. 1 even after service of notice. Hence, he was proceeded ex parte. 5. Non-Applicant No. 2 submitted reply denying the pleadings made in the claim application and pleaded that the accident occurred due to own negligence of the applicant/claimant. Further, the Non-Applicant No. 2 denied the fact that the applicant suffered permanent disability due to the motor accidental injuries suffered by him. The Non-applicant No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle with valid and effective driving license on the date of accident and thus, they have been falsely implicated in the claim application. There was valid permit and fitness of the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was insured with the Non- Applicant No. 3, therefore, if any compensation is awarded, then same is payable by the Non-Applicant No. 3. 6. Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application pleading that the claimant has not produced the disability certificate issued by the competent Medical Board to substantiate the plea with respect to permanent disability. On the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving license and even, there was no valid permit or fitness certificate in faovour of the offending vehicle. Hence, the offending vehicle was plied on the road in violation of the essential conditions of the insurance policy and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the facts and evidence brought on record by respective parties held that the injuries suffered by the applicant/claimant was not due to the accident caused by the offending vehicle and the applicant did not suffer permanent disability., 4 allowed the claim application in part, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,15,818/- as compensation. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon the Appellant/Insurance Company to satisfy the award assuming that on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle might have the learner’s license in his name, overlooking the fact that copy of the learner’s license is not produced before the learned Claims Tribunal. Without there being copy of learner’s license, assumption of fact is erroneous. On the date of accident i.e. 19.04.2013, the Non-Applicant No. 1/Driver of the offending vehicle was not having any license. The permanent license was issued only on 15.05.2013 i.e. after the date of accident. She submits that as it is a case of no license, the appeal be allowed. It be held that the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of conditions of the policy and exonerate the insurance company from its liability. 9. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 claimant would submit that even if the arguments of the learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company is to be accepted that on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessed with the license, then the Appellant/Insurance Company may be directed to first pay the compensation and thereafter, to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 10. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 would submit that in the evidence of the employee of the Regional Transport Office, it has come that normally, learner’s license is issued prior to issuance of the license. The period of learner’s license is of 06 months and if the 5 license is issued on 15.05.2013, then the learner’s license might have been issued 06 months prior to 15.05.2013 whereas, the accident is only of 01 month prior to the issuance of of license. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the claim case. 12. Perusal of the Final Report submitted by the police after completion of investigation would show that the investigating agency has submitted the charge-sheet including the offence under Sections 3/181 and 5/180 of the Act, 1988. Perusal of the reply to the claim application as submitted by the Respondent No. 3/Non-Applicant No. 2 (owner of the offending vehicle) would show that in the pleadings, no specific stand has been taken by the owner that on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was accompanied by a person holding the regular license and there was compliance of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1989). 13. According to the provisions, under Section 10 (2) of the Act, 1988, the person possessing the learner’s license can drive the class of vehicle of which, the license has been issued, however, subject to compliance of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989, but the provision under sub-section 2 of Section 10 is subject to compliance of Rule 3 of Rules, 1989. Perusal of the records would show that the Non-applicant No. 1 (driver of the offending vehicle) was proceeded ex parte. The Non-applicant No. 2 appeared before the learned Claims Tribunal, however, he had not submitted the learner’s license before the learned Claims Tribunal for its consideration. 14. The Non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company examined Smt. Hemlata Dingre, Data Entry Operator as NAW – 1. In her evidence, she 6 admitted that the license (Ex. D/1) which she has brought, does not bear the endorsement of learner’s license, further that, he has not bought the record of the license issued in favour of Gurujeet Singh i.e. the Non-applicant No. 1 and admitted that she has not brought record of the issuance of the license issued in favour of the Non-applicant No. 1. Even if, it is to be considered that the Non-applicant No. 3 failed to prove the fact that on the date of accident, the Non-applicant No. 1 was not possessed with the learner’s license, but the fact remains that, the person possessing the learner’s license can drive the motor vehicle/motorcycle only after compliance of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989. Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989 is extracted below for ready reference:- 15. The Non-applicant No. 2/owner of the offending vehicle has not taken any specific plea in his reply to claim application that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle complying the provision under Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that at the time of accident, the Non-applicant No. 1 was possessing the learner’s license, only because the regular license has been issued and not taking note of the provisions under Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989. For the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed. The Appellant/Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 16. Now, it is the liability of the Non-applicant No. 1 & 2/Respondent No. 2 & 3 i.e. the driver and owner of the offending vehicle to satisfy the award of Rs. 3,15,181/-. As this Court has exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle was not 7 having the license on the date of accident, keeping in mind the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamanna & Anr. Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2018) 9 SCC 650, Amrit Pal Singh and Anr. Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558, the Appellant/Insurance Company is directed to first satisfy the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal and thereafter, to recover the same from the Non-applicants No. 1 & 2/Driver and owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with law. This Court further directs that for recovery of the amount, insurer will not be required to file separate suit, but can recover the compensation so paid, as per directives of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanjappan & Ors. reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224 in same proceedings.
Decision
17. In the result, appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/- Sd/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge