1 2025:CGHC:39948 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 510 of 2021 1 - Chetan Sharma S/o Shri Ramanand Sharma Aged About 33 Years Residence Of Bhanpuri , District Raipur Chhattisgarh At Present Aatabira Police Station Aatabira, (Orissa) Vehicle Office At Bargarh Police Station Bargarh District Bargarh Orissa (Owner Of Truck Bearing No. C.G. 04/ D.G. - 2184), --- Appellant versus 1 - Mu. Purnima Patel W/o Late Thandaram Aged About 44 Years Caste Mali, 2 - Ku. Indumati D/o Late Thandaram Patel Aged About 28 Years 3 - Tarachand S/o Late Thandaram Patel Aged About 25 Years No.1 to 3 all are residence Of Village Manikpur Tahsil Baramkela District Raigarh Chhattisgarh At Present Kauhakunda , Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - Parikhit Mukhi Sahu @ Ajeet S/o Arjun Aged About 32 Years Caste Sahu, Residence Of Devgadha, Police Station Baudh, District Baudh Orissa. (Driver Of Truck Bearing No. C.G. 04/ D.G. 2184) 5 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited , Officer Itwari Bazar Tahsil And District Raigarh (Insurer Of Truck Bearing No. C.G. 04/ D.G. 2184) ---Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Arvind Sinha, Advocate BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.01 11:06:38 +0530 2 For Respondents No. 5 : Mr. Nikhil Kumar Singh, Advocate & Mr. Mehul Kumar Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.L. Dewangan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 08/08/2025 1. Appellant, owner of offending vehicle has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the award dated 16.07.2021 passed by Learned 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 363/2011, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed by applicants-claimants therein under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part, awarded total sum of ₹ 9,10,000/- as compensation fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon non-applicant No. 1 and 2/ driver and owner of offending vehicle. 2. The motor accident occurred on 09.09.2019 near village Putidih Main Road within the jurisdiction of Police Station Dabhara, District -Janjgir Champa by the vehicle Truck bearing number CG 04DG-2184 (henceforth called as “offending vehicle”) driven by its driver non- applicant No. 1, rashly and negligently, and death of Thandaram Patel (deceased) is not in dispute. The appellant/owner of the truck/offending vehicle has filed this appeal challenging the liability of satisfying the impugned award fastened upon it. Therefore, this Court is not dealing with the facts of accident as pleaded by the parties in their claim application, reply to the claim application and further adverted in the impugned award but only considering the ground raised on fastening of liability. 3 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that this appeal is filed by owner of the offending vehicle challenging the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal fastening liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon owner and driver of the offending vehicle i.e. non-applicants No. 1 & 2. He submits that learned Tribunal while deciding the issue whether on the date of accident, non- applicant No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving license, erroneously recorded a finding that on the date of accident, non- applicant No.1, driver of offending vehicle was not possessed with valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle which is heavy goods vehicle, however, he was possessed with licence to drive light motor vehicle only. It is contended that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was holding valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.3, therefore, fastening of liability upon non-applicants No.1 and 2 is perverse. He prays for shifting of the liability upon the non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.5/Insurance Company would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant and submit that respondent No.5/Insurance Company has duly proved vide (Exhibit NA-1), which is certified copy of the extract of the driving license of non-applicant No. 1 and by adducing oral evidence, that on the date of the accident, non-applicant No. 1 was holding a license only to drive a light motor vehicle and was not authorized to drive the offending vehicle, which was a heavy goods vehicle. It is contended that the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal exonerating the respondent/Insurance Company and fastening liability upon non- 4 applicants No.1 and 2 is upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence brought on record, which does not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused record of claim case. 6. It is not in dispute that the vehicle involved in the accident is truck bearing registration No.C.G.-04/DG-2184, which is heavy goods carriage vehicle. It is also not in dispute that the said vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company to cover risk for the period from 04.12.2009 to midnight of 03.12.2010 and accident occurred on 09.09.2010. The Claims Tribunal exonerated Insurance Company on the ground that driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid license to drive the class of vehicle which he was driving on the date of accident. 7. Before proceeding to appreciate submission of learned counsel for respective parties, it is relevant to first have look on to relevant statutory provisions of the Act, 1988 in facts of the case which are as under :- "Section 2(10) "driving licence" means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description; “Section 2(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;” “Section 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 5 the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7500] kilo grams;” “3. Necessity for driving licence. Necessity for driving licence. -(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than [a motor cab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under subsection (2) of section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.” 8. Perusal of the record of the claim case reveals that non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company has placed on record a copy of the extract of the driving license of non-applicant No. 1 as Exhibit NA-1, obtained from the Regional Transport Office, Sambalpur. The said document indicates that non-applicant No. 1 was authorized to drive only a light motor vehicle (non-transport). The Insurance Company also filed a verification report Exhibit NA-2 and examined Surendra Kumar Panda as NAW-1, who in his evidence stated that he conducted an inquiry at the RTO, Sambalpur, on instructions and obtained the extract of the driving license (Exhibit NA-1). Based on the said extract, he prepared and submitted his report (Exhibit NAW-2) dated 20.06.2011, wherein it is mentioned that non-applicant No. 1 was authorized to drive only a light motor vehicle, and that the driving license was neither valid nor effective for driving a heavy goods vehicle or any two-wheeler. 9. Non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company also examined its Administrative Officer, Smt. Sharda Namdev as NAW-2. This witness 6 corroborated the testimony of Surendra Kumar Panda (NAW-1) and proved the insurance policy marked as Exhibit NA-3. She further stated that, as per the terms and conditions of the said policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation if the vehicle was being driven by a person who was not holding valid driving license at the time of the accident. 10. Although the Registration Certificate of the offending vehicle has not been placed on record, however, perusal of the insurance policy (Ex.NA-3) of the said vehicle reveals that the vehicle in question is a Tata truck bearing registration number C.G.-04-DG-2184, with a gross vehicle weight of 25,000 kilograms. The insurance policy was issued to cover the risk associated with this vehicle for the period commencing from 04.12.2009 till on 03.12.2010. 11. Non-applicant No. 2, Chetan Sharma, examined himself as NAW-3 and admitted that non-applicant No.1 was employed by him as a driver. He further deposed that non-applicant No. 1 was holding a valid and effective driving license, and claimed that the document (Exhibit NA-1) submitted by non-applicant No. 3 is false and fabricated. This witness also admitted that his vehicle, bearing registration number CG-04-DG-2184, is a heavy goods vehicle. Although an attempt was made by the witness to dispute the identity of the person mentioned in Exhibits NA-1 and NA-2 and non-applicant No. 1 by asserting that the driver engaged by him was one Parikshit Mukhi Sahu @ Sujit, however, in his cross-examination he admitted that he did not mention the name of driver of the offending vehicle as Parikshit Mukhi @ Sujit Mukhi in any document, nor was it stated that the said driver holds a 7 valid driving license for heavy goods vehicles. He also admitted that he had not placed on record the Voter ID card or Aadhaar card of Parikshit Mukhi in support of his claim. He further admitted that he has neither lodged any complaint regarding submission of forged and fabricated documents by the Insurance Company, nor produced certified copy or photocopy of the driving license of Parikshit Mukhi/non-applicant No. 1, before the Tribunal. 12. From the document placed on record by the claimants as (Ex.P-10) which is the final report submitted by the police after investigation of crime, it can be seen that, separate action has been taken against non-applicant No.1 and 2 under Section 3/184 and 3/181 of the Act, 1988 for not having a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle. Registration of offence U/s. 3/181 shows that driver of offending vehicle was not having license. 13. Non-applicant No. 1, who is the driver of the offending vehicle, did not participate in the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. No written statement or reply was filed on his behalf to contest or rebut the allegations leveled against him and he was proceeded ex-parte. 14. In light of the foregoing discussion on the documentary and oral evidence adduced by the respective parties, and having regard to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is evident that the offending vehicle involved in the accident is a heavy goods vehicle. It is also established that non-applicant No. 1, driver of the offending vehicle, hold a valid driving license only for light motor vehicles and was not authorized to drive a heavy goods vehicle, 8 15. For the afore discussions, this Court is of the view that the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to indemnify the insured and fastening liability upon non-applicants No. 1 and 2 holding that there was a serious breach of policy conditions, as non-applicant No. 1 did not hold a valid and effective driving license authorizing him to drive the heavy goods vehicle involved in the accident is upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence brought on record, which does not call for any interference. 16. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Appeal being sans merit, it is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram