Vistarni Kurre Vs Samundbai

¶1

-1-

¶2

2025:CGHC:41668

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 210 of 2024

¶6

Vistarni Kurre D/o Maniram Kurre Aged About 32 Years Occupation - Aanganbadi Worker, R/o Village Dongariyakhurd, Chowki Damapur, Police Station Kunda, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 491001,...(Owner)

¶7

... Appellant (s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Samundbai W/o Ramsingh Banjare Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Kharhari, House No. 52, Post Nandal, Tahsil And Police Station Navagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.),...(Claimant)

¶10

2 - Varun Banjare S/o Manoj Kumar Banjare Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Guardian Manoj Kumar Banjare, S/o Kundan Dutt Banjare, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Nawagaon (Katai), Police Station Nawagaon, District Bemetara (C.G.),...(Driver)

¶11

3 - Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Manager, Second Floor, Dare House No. 2, N.S.C. Bos Road, Chennai 600001, Local Branch Office Shop No. C.F. 7 And 8, Garden Side First Floor, Rajeev Plaza Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), 495001, (Insurance Period - 25/07/2022 To 24/07/2022),...(Insurance Company)

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vaibhav Goverdhan, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : None appears though served For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Shristi Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate _______________________________________________________

¶14

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.09.17 10:45:40 +0530

¶15

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶16

Judgment On Board

-2-

18/08/2025

Heard.

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is filed by appellant -owner of the offending vehicle challenging the award dated 05.01.2024 passed by learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, (CG) in Motor Accidents Claim Case No.63 of 2023.

¶21

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondent No.1/claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on 31.01.2023, Kishan Banjare was going to Nawagarh from his home village Kharhari on his bicycle. On the way, when he reached near a pond, non-applicant No.1 driving scooty No. CG 28- N -4642 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) rashly and negligently dashed bicycle of Kishan, caused an accident, in which Kishan suffered grievous injuries on his head and other parts of body. He was first taken to Hospital at Raipur, on the way, he succumbed to injuries. It was pleaded in claim application that at the time of accident, deceased Kishan was aged about 39 years and earning Rs.12,000/- per month by doing agricultural and labourer work. Due to untimely death of deceased Kishan, claimant (mother of deceased) claimed for total sum of Rs.51,36,000/- from non-applicants under different heads.

¶22

Non-applicant No.1 driver of offending vehicle filed his written statement denying pleadings made in the claim application and further pleaded that

¶23

-3-

¶24

he has not caused any accident. Deceased was a patient of epilepsy and on the date of accident due to epilepsy attack, deceased himself fell from bicycle and suffered injuries. He further pleaded that as scooty was insured with non-applicant No.3, therefore, if any compensation is awarded to claimant, liability to pay the same would be upon nonapplicant No.3.

¶25

Non-applicant No.2, owner of offending vehicle in his written statement also resisted the claim and pleaded that his vehicle -scooty was not involved in the accident.

¶26

Non-applicant No.3/ Insurance Company in its written statement denied pleadings made in claim application and further pleaded that compensation claimed is highly exaggerated. At the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was not having any valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle, which is in breach of conditions of insurance policy. Therefore, non-applicant No.3 is not liable to pay any amount of compensation to claimant.

¶27

Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1, owned by non-applicant No.2 in which applicant/claimant suffered grievous injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of the conditions of insurance policy was found to be proved as on the date of accident driver of the offending vehicle was not having driving licence, non-applicant No.3 was exonerated from its liability and fastened liability

¶28

-4-

¶29

upon non-applicants No. 1 & 2 (Driver and Owner of offending vehicle) to pay amount of compensation of Rs.12,01,200/- jointly of severally.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the pleadings made in written statement of nonapplicant No.1 in appropriate manner. It failed to see the fact that deceased himself fell from the bicycle and suffered injuries. Though on the date of accident vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3/insurance company, learned Claims Tribunal exonerated nonapplicant No.3/Insurance Company and fastened liability upon driver and owner of offending vehicle, which in facts of case is erroneous.

¶31

Learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant and respondent No.3/Insurance Company support the impugned award. In addition, submission of learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company is that learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence available on record has concluded that as on the date of accident non-applicant No.1/Driver was not having valid and effective driving licence, he was driving vehicle in breach of condition of insurance policy and therefore it rightly exonerated the insurance company. Impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal does not call for any interference.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused record of claim case.

¶33

10.Admittedly, appellant/non-applicant No.2 is owner of offending vehicle which was involved in motor accident in which Kishan Banjare died due

¶34

-5-

¶35

to motor accidental injuries suffered by him on 31.01.2023. Report of the incident was lodged on 02.02.2023 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. Police during course of investigation seized scooty, RC and copy of insurance policy of the offending vehicle. Perusal of seizure memo which is available in record of claim case would show that there is no mention of seizure of any driving licence. Before the Claims Tribunal also no driving licence was produced by the owner of offending vehicle. No such evidence has been brought on record in this case to show that non-applicant No.1 was authorized by competent authority to drive the said vehicle.

¶36

Section 3 of the Act of 1988 deals with necessity for driving licence, which reads as under:-

¶37

“3. 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 motorcab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.

¶38

(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 .”

¶39

From perusal of the above provision, it is crystal clear that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence authorizing him to drive the vehicle of that

¶40

-6-

¶41

particular class. Failure of the driver to possess such a licence not only constitutes a statutory violation but also reflects gross negligence and disregard for road safety norms.

¶42

So far as fastening liability upon owner and driver of offending vehicle is concerned, it is well settled law that Insurance Company can be fastened with the liability on the basis of a valid insurance policy only after the basic facts are pleaded and established by the owner of the offending vehicle - that the vehicle was not only duly insured but also that it was driven by an authorised person having a valid driving licence. Without producing any evidence to substantiate the fact that driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, owner of the vehicle cannot be said to have extricated himself from his liability. The Insurance Company would become liable only after such foundational facts are pleaded and proved by the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶43

For the foregoing discussions, I am of the view that there is no error in the finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal that on the date of accident offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1/Driver without having any valid and effective driving licence in breach of policy condition and thereby exonerating insurance company from its liability. Direction issued by learned Claims Tribunal to non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company to first pay amount of compensation and thereafter recover the same is also in the tune of judgment in case of Shamanna & Anr Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (2018) 9 SCC 650, which also does not call for

¶44

-7-

¶45

any interference.

¶46

15.In the result, there is no merit in the appeal. Appeal fails and is hereby

¶47

dismissed.

¶48

Sd/Sd/-

¶49

(Parth Prateem Sahu)