Ashok S/o Late Shri N.S. Prajapati Aged About 42 Years R/o Jarhabhatha, Kumharpara, Police v. 1
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:35971 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1159 of 2019 Ashok S/o Late Shri N.S. Prajapati Aged About 42 Years R/o Jarhabhatha, Kumharpara, Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle) … Appellant (s) versus 1 - Smt. Rajkumari W/o Dheerpal Singh Aged About 27 Years 2 - Himesh Kumar S/o Late Dheerpal Singh Aged About 6 Years 3 - Ku. Hansani D/o Late Dheerpal Singh Aged About 3 Years Respondent No. 2 and 3 are minor through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Respondent No. 1 Smt. Rajkumari Singh 4 - Ganesh Singh S/o Late Adhari Singh Aged About 80 Years 5 - Smt. Mankunwar W/o Ganesh Singh Aged About 70 Years All R/o Village and Post Chhatouna, Police Chowki Belbahana, Police Station And Tahsil Kota, Distarict Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Shiv Kumar @ Shivji S/o Parikha Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Baikunthpur Katchharipara, Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Offending Vehicle), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Second Floor Sonaliya Building Satigudi Chowk, Sadar Bazar, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle), ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. KPS Gandhi, Advocate For Resp. No. 7 _______________________________________________________ Mr. Sudhir Agrawal Advocate : Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.08.12 10:26:00 +0530 -2- S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 24/07/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is filed by the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle Excavator (miscellaneous special type vehicle) challenging the award dated 13th March 2019 passed by learned First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG) in Claim Case No.87 of 2017 whereby learned Claims Tribunal recording a finding that the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of policy conditions, exonerated insurance company from its liability to pay amount of compensation and fastened liability upon the appellant/owner, however, issued direction to insurance company to first pay amount of compensation and thereafter recover the same. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondents No. 1 to 5/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 pleading therein that in the intervening night of 26-27th of May 2016, Dheerpal Singh was performing his duty as Watchman at the sand mining area of Arpa river located at village Chhatauna. At that time, non-applicant No.1, driving the vehicle Pocklain rashly and negligently crushed Dheerpal Singh under the vehicle, and he died in the said accident. Deceased Dheerpal Singh was 28-year-old young man, who was earning Rs. 300/- per day as a Watchman. Applicants were dependent on the income of the deceased. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, applicants are deprived of income of the deceased. -3- Applicants have claimed for total compensation of Rs. 17,46,000/- from non-applicants under different heads. 3. Non-applicants No.1 and 2 in their written statement has denied the pleadings made in the claim application and further pleaded that non- applicant No.1 has not caused any accident with the vehicle- Pocklain. vehicle- Pocklain has been falsely implicated in the case. On the date of the accident, Pocklain was insured with non-applicant No.3/insurance company, hence, the liability of paying compensation is of non-applicant No.3. 4. Non-applicant No.3/insurance company in its written statement has also denied the pleadings made in the claim application and it was pleaded that accident did not cause by vehicle Pocklain. There is no negligence or carelessness of non-applicant No.1 in the accident, rather accident happened due to negligence of the deceased himself. Non-applicant No.1 did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle Pocklain on the date of accident and non-applicant No.2 was plying the same without valid and effective permit which was breach of policy condition and hence, non-applicant No.3/insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation due to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, accident occurred in which Dheerpal Singh suffered grievous injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was found to be -4- proved, held non-applicants 1 & 2 liable to pay amount of compensation to claimants and also issued direction of pay and recover to non-applicant No.3. Assessing income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.6107/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.13,78,150/-. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/non-applicant No.2 (owner of the vehicle) submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that there is requirement of licence with endorsement of transport vehicle also, whereas, under Rule 2 (cab) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short “Rules of 1989”) it is specifically mentioned that Excavator to be a non-transport vehicle. On the date of accident, driver of offending vehicle was possessed with licence of Light Motor Vehicle and therefore the licennce authorizing the driver of vehicle to drive Light Motor Vehicle is competent to drive Excavator. Offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.7/non-applicant No.3 and, therefore, appeal be allowed and liability to satisfy the amount of compensation be fastened upon insurance company. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 Insurance Company would submit that claim application has been filed with fabricated facts. Accident was with truck (trailer), however, in the claim application pocklain machine has been pleaded as offending vehicle and accordingly proceedings have been initiated . He further submits that there is no evidence brought on record by the owner or driver of offending vehicle to show that weight of offending vehicle was less than 7500 kg. Even in insurance policy issued by non-applicant No.3/ -5- 8. 9. insurance company and placed on record as Ex.D-1 does not mentions the class of vehicle as Light Motor Vehicle, Light Goods Vehicle or Light Transport Vehicle but it mentions "Miscellaneous Special Type" for which specific licence is needed and, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal justified in recording a finding that on the date of accident driver of offending vehicle /non-applicant No.1 was not possessed with the licence authorizing him to drive the Excavator. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of claim case. In the claim application, there is pleading that accident was with Pocklain machine Hyundai 210 Chain-mounting vehicle No. CG 04 JC 2139. Claimants have also submitted documents of criminal case prepared by police during investigation. FIR which was registered immediately on the next date of accident in the morning at about 10:00 mentions that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver of Pocklain Hyundai 210 and name of driver is also mentioned as Shivkumar Yadav. Accident happened in the sand mining area which is exclusive place for operating of Pocklain machine. Police during investigation has also seized document from owner of vehicle i.e. appellant/non-applicant No.2 Ashok, like the invoice of the Pocklain machine mentioning Shri Shyam Construction Equipment mentioning registration No. CG 04 JC 2139 dated 21.07.2016. Non-applicant No.3/ insurance company in the reply submitted to claim application has taken a defence that accident was not with Pocklain Hyundai 210 chain-mounting machine insured by it and insurance policy issued is with limited liability. -6- 10. Claimants have examined claimant No.1 Rajkumari as AW1 who made statement in chief according to pleading made in the claim application. AW2 Ramesh Singh was examined as eyewitness to the accident. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was not present at the spot at the time of accident. 11. Non-applicant No.3/ insurance company examined Vincent Tirkey Brach Manager of Divisional Office Bilaspur as NAW-3. He stated that on the date of accident non-applicant No.1 driver of offending vehicle was not possessed with valid and effective licence and in support of this fact he produced extract of driving licence of non-applicant No.1 which was a licence issued for Motorcycle with Gear, Light Motor Vehicle and Transport Vehicle. Validity period of licence is mentioned as 31.05.2016 till 30.05.2019 . The accident occurred in intervening night of 26-27th May 2016. Transport license was not valid from 10.02.2016 till 30.05.2019 and accident occurred in between that period . 12. To come out with said observation made by learned Claims Tribunal that on the date of accident transport licence was not effective learned counsel for appellant made submission that Light Motor Vehicle licence is sufficient to drive Excavator. However, owner and driver of offending vehicle has not produced certificate of registration of vehicle before Claims Tribunal so as to consider weight of the offending vehicle. 13. Section 2 (14) of the Act of 1988 defines “goods carriage”; Section 2 (16) defines “heavy goods vehicle” ; Section 2 (21) defines “light motor vehicle” and Section 2 (47) defines “transport vehicle”, which being -7- relevant are reproduced herein-under for ready reference: “(14) “goods carriage” means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods; x x x (16) “heavy goods vehicle” means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms; x x x x x x (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. x x x x x x (47) “transport vehicle” means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle; 14. The offending vehicle is not defined under any of the definitions clause under Section 2 of the Act of 1988 but it has been defined under Rule 2 (cab) of Rules of 1989 as “Construction Equipment Vehicle”, which reads thus: “[(cab) "construction equipment vehicle" means a self-propelled machine with rubber tyred (including pneumatic tyred), rubber padded or rubber or steel -8- 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 or concrete pumps or any other construction equipment vehicle or combination thereof primarily designed to perform earth 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;] 15. Perusal of the aforementioned Rule would show that the vehicle excavator, loader, backhoe, dumper, dozer etc. have been defined as ‘Construction Equipment Vehicle. Under the Explanation, it has been very specifically mentioned that the Construction Equipment Vehicle -9- shall be a non-transport vehicle. However, admittedly in licence of non- applicant No.1/driver available on record does not bear endorsement authorizing him to operate “construction equipment vehicle”. 16. For the foregoing discussions, I am of the view that finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.2/owner of the offending vehicle was not possessed with any valid and effective driving licence to drive Excavator and thereby violating conditions of the insurance policy, exonerating insurance company from its liability to pay amount of compensation and fastening liability upon appellant/owner of the offending vehicle does not call for any interference. 17. I do not find any merit in this appeal. Appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ...Definition.... /- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen