National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Kamla Bai Kavde And ORS.
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 599 of 2011 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, Through: its Divisional Manager, Bilaspur Branch, Taha Complex, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Kamla Bai Kavde, W/o. Late Mayaram Kavde, Aged about 50 years,
2. Dhanaji Kavde, S/o. Late Mayaram Kavde, Aged about 25 years, Both are R/o. Village Aalbeda, Post Kanharpuri, District North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh (Claimants)
3. Rajnath Markam, S/o. Jethuram Markam, Aged about 24 years, R/o. Pataud, Tahsil Kanker, District North Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Driver)
4. Hemant Kumar Sahu, S/o. Narayan Ram Sahu, Aged about 33 years, R/o. Pataud, Tahsil Kanker, District North Bastar, Chhattisgarh (Owner) ----Respondents For Appellant :
Mr. Qamarul Aziz, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 :
Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondents No. 3 & 4 :
Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 11/01/2018
1. The present is an appeal by the Insurance Company assailing the award dated 05.03.2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh, in Claim Case No. 45/2010. Vide the impugned award the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application.
2. The contention of the counsel for the Insurance Company is that the Driver at the relevant point of time did not have a valid endorsement permitting him to drive a commercial vehicle and as such there was a clear breach of policy condition for which the Insurance Company
should have been exonerated of its liability and the liability in fact should have been shifted upon the respondents No. 3 & 4. The issue raised in the instant case is no longer res integra as it is squarely covered by the recent Larger Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited" AIR 2017 S.C. 3668."
3. Admittedly, the vehicle involved in the instant case was a Jeep bearing registration No. CG/09/ZT/0127. Undisputed also is the fact that the driver at the relevant point of time had a license for driving Light Motor Vehicle.
4. In view of the same, the present appeal in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan (supra) does not have any merits; the same deserves to be and is accordingly rejected.
Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved