Chattisgarh High Court
Rajendra Prasad vs Santosh Kumar And Ors. 34 Mac/509/2013 ... on 21 May, 2020
Bench: P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Parth Prateem Sahu
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MAC No. 858 of 2012
(Arising out of order dated 30.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon in Claim Case
No.35/2010)
• Rajendra Prasad S/o Lt. Prahalad Ram Agrawal Aged About 59 Years R/o
Civil Lines Rajnandgaon, , Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Santosh Kumar S/o Dhanauram Lodhi Aged About 29 Years R/o Vill-
Mainhar, Tah. And P.S. Chuikhadan, Dist. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
2. Geetaram S/o Preetram Aged About 35 Years R/o Vill-Pandaria, P.S. And
Tah. Chikhadan, Dist. Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
3. ICICI Lombard Gen. Insu. Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Unit No. 304-306, Lal
Ganga Complex, G.E. Raod Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
MAC No. 509 of 2013
(Arising out of order dated 30.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No.36/2010) • Rajendra Prasad S/o Late Prahalad Ram Agrawal Aged About 59 Years R/o Civil Lines, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G., Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant Versus
1. Yatipal S/o Komalram Aged About 32 Years R/o Mainhar, Tah. And P.S. Chuikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G., Chhattisgarh
2. Geetaram S/o Preetram Aged About 35 Years R/o Pandaria, P.S. And Tah. Chuikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
3. I.C.I.C.I. Lumbard General Insu. Co. Ltd. Branch Office- Unit No. 304-306, Lalganga Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents ________________________________________________________________ For Appellant : None present For Respondent No.3 in MAC 858/2012 : Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate for Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate in MAC 509/2013 : Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate for Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate __________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board 2 Per, P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice 21.05.2020
1. Both these appeals have been preferred at the instance of the owner of the Bus bearing No. C.G.-04 E 1057 against the common Award dated 30.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, District - Rajnandgaon (hereinafter referred as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case Nos. 35/2010 and 36/2010. The grievance is with regard to the fixation of liability upon the Appellant, exonerating the Insurer, for the reason that there was no valid 'permit' for the Bus on the date of accident i.e. on 06.02.2010.
2. The factual position disclosed from the proceedings is that, on 06.02.2010, the claimants by name Santosh Kumar (Rider) {R-1 in MAC No.858/2012} and Yatipal (Pillion Rider) {R-1 in MAC No.509/2013) were proceeding on Motorcycle 4S Champion Boxer, allegedly for attending a marriage ceremony. On their way, when the Motorcycle reached the place of occurrence, the Bus bearing No. C.G.- 04 E 1057 owned by the Appellant, driven by 2nd Respondent - Geetaram and insured by the 3rd Respondent coming from the opposite knocked them, which led to the claim petitions preferred by the Rider and the Pillion Rider.
3. The claim was sought to be resisted on the various grounds. The Insurance Company specifically pleaded that there is no valid permit on the date of accident and as such, there cannot be any liability for the Insurer to satisfy the claim. This was sought to to be substantiated by 3 causing to produce Ex-D/1 Permit, Ex-D/2 Register and Ex-D/2(c) a photocopy of D/2. A witness Teejram (DW-1) was also sought to be examined in this regard. After hearing both the sides and analysing the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only because of the negligence on the part of the Driver of the Bus. The compensation was fixed under various heads, granting a total sum of Rs. 1,09,974/- in the case of the Rider involved in Claim Case No.35/2010 and a total sum of Rs.1,18,941/- in the case of Pillion Rider involved in Claim Case No.36/2010. The said amounts were directed to be satisfied with interest of 6% per annum by the Driver and the Owner of the Bus bearing No. C.G.-04 E 1057; whereas the Insurance Company was spared, holding that there was no valid permit to shift the liability to the shoulders of the Insurer. This made the Owner of the Bus to feel aggrieved, who is before us with two separate appeals as mentioned above in respect of the claims preferred by the Rider and Pillion Rider.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and for the Respondent No.3 Insurance Company. We have perused the relevant records as well.
5. On going through the pleadings and proceedings, the case of the Appellant-
Owner of the Bus bearing No. C.G.-04 E 1057 appears to be that the Appellant-Owner had remitted necessary fees/charges for obtaining the 'permit' before the date of accident, but the 'permit' came to be issued only later, w.e.f. 09.02.2010. In support of the said contention Annexure-A/3 in MAC No.858/2012 and Annexure-A/4 in MAC No.509 of 2013 have been produced.
4
6. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company points out that the evidence brought on record before the Tribunal clearly reveals that the 'permit' was issued by the Competent Authority only for the period from 09.02.2010 to 28.02.2010. It is also pointed out that the necessary payment for getting the 'permit' was effected by the Appellant-Owner only on 08.02.2010, which led to granting of the 'permit' from 09.02.2010 till 28.02.2010.
7. On going through the case put up by the Appellant in the present appeal, the main ground taken under Ground No. 9.2 is that a sum of Rs.7,000/- was deposited under the head of 'road tax' on 01.02.2010, where the payment for getting the 'permit' is not mentioned. That apart, the contention under Ground No.9.4 is that the Tribunal ought to have held that on the date of issuance of the insurance policy, there was a valid permit and as such it was enough so as to mulct the liability upon the Respondents. We find it difficult to accept the said proposition. The law is well settled by the verdict passed by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Challa Bharathamma and Others1, that absence of valid permit is a statutory defence available to the Insurer under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as 'MV Act') and that in the absence of valid permit, no liability can be mulcted upon the shoulders of the Insurance Company.
8. In the instant case, there is no case for the Appellant that 'valid permit' was available on 06.02.2010. The Appellant's case is only that payment for granting the Permit was effected before the date of accident; but this is not sufficient to hold that the Permit was to be deemed as in existence on the date of remittance of the fee. Permit is to issued by the Competent Authority 1 (2004) 8 SCC 517 (The name of the case was later corrected by the Apex Court as "National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Upendra Rao and Others). 5 in terms of the relevant provisions of the MV Act / Rules and the evidence adduced before the Tribunal clearly shows that it was having the validity only from 09.02.2010 till 28.02.2010. This means, the vehicle was being operated on the relevant date i.e. on 06.02.2010 without having a valid permit. The said aspect has been discussed in detail by the Tribunal in paragraphs 15,16 & 17 of the Award which are to the following effect :
**15- bl okniz'u dk izek.k Hkkj vukosnd dzekad&3 chek dEiuh ij gS A mudh vksj ls nksuksa gh nkok izdj.kksa esa rhtjke oekZ ¼vukosnd dzekad&3 ds lk{kh dz-&1½ dk dFku djk;k x;k gS A ftUgksaus nq?kZVukxzLr cl dzekad lh-th-&04@bZ-&1057 dh vuqKk i= ¼iz-Mh-1½ rFkk mlls lacaf/kr jftLVj ¼iz-Mh-2½ ftldh QksVksdkih ¼iz-Mh-2lh½ dks izekf.kr dj ;g vfHkdFku fd;k gS fd] mDr cl ds okgu Lokeh jktsUnz izlkn vxzoky ds uke ij fnukad 09-02-2010 ls fnukad 28-02-2010 rd dh vof/k ds fy;s ijfeV tkjh fd;k x;k gS A izn'kZ Mh- 2 lh ds **v ls v** Hkkx rd nf'kZr 750-00 :i;s dh jkf'k vLFkk;h vuqKk i= ijfeV ds fy;s fnukad 08-02-2010 dks fn;k x;k gS vkSj **c ls c** Hkkx ij mYysf[kr 7]000-00 :i;s jksM VsDl gsrq fy;k x;k gS] ftldk [k.Mu izfrijh{k.k ls ugha gqvk gS A okgu Lokeh vukosnd dzekad&2 Lo;a ¼vukosnd dzekad&2 ds lk{kh dzekad&1½ ds vuqlkj mudk okgu cl dzekad&lh-th-&04@bZ-&1057 djhc 5&6 o"kksZa ls lktk ls NqbZ[knku ekxZ ij py jgk Fkk ftldk ijfeV ?kVuk ds iwoZ ls vkt rd dk gS A ?kVuk fnukad ds ekg esa Hkh ijfeV Fkk A ijfeV gsrq VSDl igys iVkrs gS og vkj-Vh-vks- okys ijfeV vius fglkc ls nsrs gSa A mUgksaus izfrijh{k.k esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd] cl ds ijfeV ckcr~ jde tek djus ij mldk mYys[k vkj-Vh-vks- }kjk fn;s x;s ijfeV esa jgrk gS A muds }kjk izLrqr vLFkk;h vuqKk i= dh uksV~jh }kjk vVSLVsV izfr esa iz'uk/khu okgu cl dzekad&lh-th-&04@bZ-&1057 dh vLFkk;h vuqKk i= dh rkjh[k 09-02-2010 ls 28-02-2010 rd dh vof/k gsrq gS A 6 16- okgu Lokeh vukosnd dzekad&2 jktsUnz izlkn vxzoky ¼vukosnd dzekad&2 ds lk{kh dzekad&1½ rFkk chek dEiuh dh vksj ls mifLFkr lk{kh rhtjke oekZ ¼vukosnd dzekad&3 ds lk{kh dzekad&1½ dss ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ls ;g Li"V gS fd ¼iz- Mh-1½ ds vuqKki= nq?kZVukxzLr cl ds fy;s fnukad 09-02-2010 ls fnukad 28-02-2010 rd dh vof/k ds fy;s tkth fd;k x;k gS vkSj blh laca/k esa jftLVj ¼iz-Mh-2½ ftldh QksVksizfr ¼iz-Mh-2lh½ gS A ;|fi okgu Lokeh jktsUnz izlkn vxzoky dk ;g dguk gS fd] og tuojh ds var esa gh ijfeV gsrq jkf'k vnk dj fn;k Fkk] ijUrq vius ml ekSf[kd dFku ds leFkZu esa dksbZ fo'oluh; nLrkost ;k dksbZ voyEcuh; lk{; is'k ugha fd;k x;k gS A ;|fi rhtjke oekZ ¼vukosnd dzekad&3 ds lk{kh dzekad&1½ us vius izfrijh{k.k dh dafMdk&4 esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd] VSDl iVkus ds ckn Hkh vkj-Vh-vks- vf/kdkjh ugha jgrs gSa] rc ftl rkjh[k dks vkj-Vh-vks- vf/kdkjh cSBrs gS rks mlh fnukad dks ijfeV tkjh fd;k tkrk gS A ij vfHkys[k ds lk{; ds vuqlkj o"kZ 2010 ds tuojh ekg esa gh fdl rkjh[k dks ijfeV gsrq fdruh jkf'k vnk dj nh xbZ gS mls voyEcuh; lk{; ls izekf.kr ugha fd;k x;k gS A tSlk fd mUgksaus jksM VSDl ds fy;s 7]000-00 :i;s dk Mh-Mh- fnukad 01-02-2010 dks rS;kj fd;k x;k gS] rc jksM VSDl ds 7]000-00 :i;s ds Mh-Mh- uEcj 019038 fnukad 01-02-2010 dks rS;kj fd;k x;k gS rc fdl fnukad ls izHkkoh ekuk tk ldrk gS A fdUrq ijfeV gsrq 750- 00 :i;s ekg Qjojh ds fy;s ?kVuk ds iwoZ vnk fd;s tkus dk fo'oluh; ,oa voyEcuh; lk{; dks okgu Lokeh }kjk izekf.kr ugha fd;k x;k gS rc vuqKk i= ¼iz-Mh-1½ ,oa mlls lacaf/kr iath ¼iz-Mh-2½ esa fy[ks vuqlkj fnukad 09-02-2010 ls fnukad 28-02-2010 rd dh vof/k ds fy;s vuqKk i= gksuk izef.kr ik;k tkrk gS A nq?kZVuk fnukad 06-02-2010 dks nq?kZVukxzLr okgu dk ijfeV gksuk izekf.kr uha gS A ijfeV gsrq nq?kZVuk ds iwoZ 'kqYd tek dj fn;s tkus ds okgu Lokeh ds ekSf[kd dFku xzkg~; ,oa fo'oluh; ugha gS A 7 17- U;k; n`"Vkar&jke dqekj ,oa vU; fo:) fuLVksj fdUMks ,oa vU; ,-vkbZ-vkj- 2011 NRrhlx<+] 126 esa nq?kZVuk ls ,d 7 o"khZ; ckyd dh e`R;q gks xbZ vkSj vijk/kxzLr cl dk nq?kZVuk fnukad dks ijfeV ugha Fkk A ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk nq?kZVuk fnukad dks cl ds ijfeV ugha gksus ls chek ikWfylh ds 'krksZa dk mYya?ku gksuk vfHkfu/kkZfjr dj chekdrkZ dks izfrdj Hkqxrku ds nkf;Ro ls mUeqDr fd;k x;k gS A fopkjk/khu izdj.k esa Hkh nq?kZVuk fnukad 06-02-2010 dks nq?kZVukxzLr cl dk ijfeV gksuk izekf.kr ugha gS A blfy;s chek ikWfylh ds 'krksZa dk mYya?ku gksuk vfHkys[k ds lk{; ls izekf.kr gSA vr% bl okniz'u ds lekjkRed fu"d"kZ vfHkfy[kr fd;s tkrs gSa A**
9. After considering all the relevant aspects as above, we do not require any second thought to hold that the verdict passed by the Tribunal, exonerating the Insurance Company and fixing the liability only upon the Owner and Driver of the offending vehicle, is perfectly within the four walls of law and it does not require any interference.
10. The appeals are devoid of any merit. They are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
(P.R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Chief Justice Judge
Chandra