Smt. Mohini Sahu Vs Sunil Baghel

4 - Smt. Vimla Bai Sahu W/o Shri Kamal Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Armarikala, Post - Armarikala, Tahsil - Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh.

¶11

All are R/o Village - Armarikala, Post - Armarikala, Tahsil - Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

¶13

Versus

¶14

1 - Sunil Baghel S/o Late Kamal Singh Baghel Aged About 38 Years R/o Adhari Navagaon, Ward No. 8, Near Sheetal Mandir, Dhamtari, Post Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Driver)

¶15

2 - Balram Dewangan S/o Pyare Lal Dewangan Aged About 26 Years Caste - Kosta, R/o - Vinobabhave Nagar Kushalpur, Ward No. -52, House No. 1356, Post Purani Basti, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner)

¶16

3 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, M.B. Trade Centre, Second Floor, Near Gandhi Chowk, Dhamtari, Post Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Insurer), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶17

--- Respondent(s)

¶18

with

¶19

-2-

¶20

MAC No. 257 of 2020

¶21

Balram Dewangan S/o Pyarelal Dewangan Aged About 26 Years Cost Kosta R/o Vinobabhave, Nagar Kushalpur, Raipur Ward No. 52, House No. 1356, Post Purani Basti, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner)

¶22

---Appellant

¶23

Versus

¶24

1- Smt. Mohani Sahu W/o Late Vasudev Sahu Aged About 27 Years,

¶25

2 - Ku. Twinkle Sahu D/o Late Vasudev Sahu Aged About 4 Years, Minor, Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Mohani Sahu,

¶26

3 - Piyush Kumar Sahu S/o Late Vasudev Sahu Aged About 2 Years Minor, Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Mohani Sahu,

¶27

4 - Smt. Vimla Bai Sahu W/o Shri Kamal Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Armarikala, Post - Armarikala, Tahsil - Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh.

¶28

All are R/o Village - Armarikala, Post - Armarikala, Tahsil - Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶29

5- Sunil Baghel S/o Late Kamal Singh Baghel Aged About 38 Years R/o Adhari Navagaon Ward No. 8, Near Shitala Tempal Dhamtari Post Dhamtari Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Driver)

¶30

6- Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, M.B. Trade Center 2nd Floor Near Gandhi Chowk Dhamtari Post Dhamtari Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) --- Respondent(s)

¶31

For Appellants in MAC/147/2020 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Appellants in MAC/257/2020 : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate For Respondent/Insurance Company : Mr. T. K. Tiwari, Advocate

¶32

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶33

Order on Board

¶34

14.01.2025

¶35

1. The claimants, as well as the owner of the vehicle, have challenged the award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

¶36

-3-

¶37

Dhamtari, in claim case No. 144/2018, dated 04.10.2019, whereby the award of Rs. 25,47,800/- with interest @ 6 % per annum has been passed in favour of the claimants and liability has been fastened on the owner of the vehicle and the respondent - Oriental Insurance Company Limited has been exonerated.

¶38

The facts of the present case are that a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was filed by the claimants, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 41,05,880/-, inter alia, on the ground that on 25.08.2008, the deceased/Vasudev, was traveling from Amrithala to Village Khaparikala on his motorcycle. The offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG-08-M-3300, which was being driven rashly and negligently, collided with the motorcycle of the deceased, causing his death. It is pleaded that the deceased, aged about 29 years, was working

¶39

as a Computer Operator and earning Rs. 13,700/- per month. The driver and owner of the vehicle filed their reply to the claim application and denied its contents.

¶40

1. The insurance company also filed its reply and stated that the learned tribunal rightly recorded the finding that the offending vehicle was not being driven with a valid driving license for a heavy vehicle. The offending vehicle was being driven without a valid permit. Taking into consideration

¶41

the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned tribunal exonerated

¶42

-4-

¶43

the insurance company and fastened the liability on the driver and owner of the vehicle.

¶44

In MAC No. 147 of 2020 , Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that a meager amount was awarded by the learned tribunal under the head of loss of love and affection.

¶45

In MAC No. 257 of 2020 , Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the driver of the offending vehicle held a valid LMV driving license. He argued that the driver of the offending vehicle held an LMV driving license but was driving a transport vehicle. He would refer to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668 , and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, (2019) 12 SCC 816 . He contended that there is no requirement to obtain an additional endorsement on the driving license to drive a transport vehicle. Thus, he submitted that the learned tribunal committed an error of law in exonerating the respondent insurance company.

¶46

1. On the other hand, Mr. T. K. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company argued that the learned tribunal did not

¶47

commit any error of law in exonerating the insurance company. He

¶48

-5-

¶49

contended that during the course of the investigation of the criminal case, the police seized two driving licenses from the driver, one issued by Regional Transport Office Dhamtari, and another issued by RTO Kawardha. He further submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle did not hold valid insurance. Additionally, he argued that the owner of the vehicle produced a permit vide Ex.D/4, which was issued for a bus bearing registration No. CG-05-J-3300 and the same was manufactured by Tata Motors, whereas the offending vehicle was manufactured by Ashok Leyland with registration No. CG-08-M-3300. He also stated that the owner of the vehicle did not have a valid permit, which is a breach of the insurance policy. Therefore, the learned tribunal rightly exonerated the insurance company and fastened the liability on the driver and owner of the vehicle.

¶50

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents.

¶51

A claim case was filed by the claimants seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 41,05,800/-. The learned tribunal concluded that the driver of the vehicle did not hold a valid driving license to drive a transport vehicle and, therefore, exonerated the insurance company and fastened the liability on the driver and owner of the vehicle. Further, the seizure memo (Ex.P/14)

¶52

reveals that two driving licenses were seized by the police during the

¶53

-6-

¶54

investigation—one issued by RTO, Dhamtari, and another by RTO, Kawardha, from the driver of the vehicle. From a perusal of the award passed by the learned tribunal, it is evident that no inquiry was conducted in this regard. Ex.D/4 is the permit produced by the owner of the vehicle, which would reveal that it pertains to a vehicle made by Tata Motors bearing registration No. CG-08-N-3300, whereas the registration number of the offending vehicle is CG-08-M-3300 and made of Ashok Leyland. The seating capacity of the Tata vehicle was 35+2, whereas the seating capacity of the offending Ashok Leyland vehicle is 45+2. In this regard, no evidence was adduced by either party, and the learned tribunal did not record any findings.

¶55

1. It is a well-settled principle of law that the absence of a valid permit constitutes a substantial breach of the insurance policy.

¶56

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the award dated 04.10.2019 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Tribunal, District Dhamtari, is hereby set aside . The matter is remitted back to the learned tribunal to decide afresh in light of the observations made hereinabove, after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶59

Nadim

Smt. Mohini Sahu v. Sunil Baghel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mohini Sahu v. Sunil Baghel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Radhika Water and Amusement Park Kota Vs The State Of C.g. and Ors.

Ku. Sunita (Died), Lrs Sahodari Pando Vs the Chairman

R.P.Sharma Vs Steel Authority of India and Anr.

Chola Mandlam General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Sunti

Smt. Anusuiya Bai Vs Pawan Kumar Tandan

Pradeep Kumar Yadav Vs M/S Indus Ind Bank Limited