The court upheld the Tribunal's liability determination, affirming that a driver with a valid LMV license can operate a transport vehicle under 7500 kg without an endorsement, and modified future prospects for compensation.

Judgment :

(Radhakishan Agrawal, J.)

1. Since both the above appeals filed by the Insurance Company arise out of same accident that took place on 12.07.2011, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. As per averments made in the claim petitions, on 12.07.2011, deceased-Chhabi @ Chhabluram Sahu and injured-Dwarika Prasad Sahu were travelling in the Mahindra Pick-Up bearing registration No.CG04-JB-1592 (hereinafter called as 'offending vehicle') and when they reached near village Chandi, the said offending vehicle turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving by its driver/non-applicant No.1 Girdhari Lal Sahu, as a result of which, deceased- Chhabi @ Chhabluram Sahu sustained grievous injuries over his body and died, whereas injured-Dwarika Prasad sustained multiple injuries over his body. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non- applicant No.2 Kawaljeet Singh and was insured with non-applicant No.3 – the Oriental Insurance Company Limited.

3. On account of death of deceased- Chhabi @ Chhabluram Sahu, a claim petition was filed by the claimants (MAC No.662/2015) under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.7,10,000/- under various heads, inter alia pleading that at the time of accident, deceased- Chhabi @ Chhabluram Sahu was aged about 35 years and was earning Rs.40,000/- per year by working as Conductor, whereas on account of injuries sustained by the claimant- Dwarika Prasad Sahu (MAC No.1607/2019) in the said accident, he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.14,00,000/- under various heads, inter alia pleading that at the time of accident, claimant- Dwarika Prasad Sahu was aged about 44 years and was earning Rs.200/- per day by working as Cleaner. However, the learned 6^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, C.G. in Claim Case No.126/2012 (MAC No.662/2015) vide award dated 26.02.2015, assessed and awarded the compensation of Rs.6,01,400/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization and fastened liability upon the non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company. Likewise, the learned 4^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur to the Court of 1^st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur C.G. in Claim Case No.566/2015 (MAC No.1607/2019) vide award dated 14.05.2019, assessed and awarded the compensation of Rs.79,513/- to the claimant-Dwarika Prasad Sahu with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization and fastened liability upon the non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company. Against the said awards, Insurance Company is before this Court by filing appeals separately.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in MAC No.662/2015 submits that the Tribunal was not justified in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company because at the time of accident, the Driver of the offending vehicle/non-applicant No.1 was not having a valid and effective licence since the vehicle was a transport vehicle whereas the driver of offending vehicle was holding MCWG & LMV for non- transport vehicle and there was no endorsement on the licence authorizing the driver to drive the transport vehicle. He further submits that claimants have filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, claimants are not entitled for grant of any amount towards future prospects and the Tribunal has erred in granting 30% towards future prospects. He also submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is also excessive, which needs to be reduced suitably. In MAC No.1607/2019, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that although at the time of accident, offending vehicle was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company, but injured-Dwarika Prasad Sahu was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous