915-FA-1968-2018 .odt

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

FIRST APPEAL NO.1968 OF 2018

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd

Through its Branch Manager,

Office at Parag Plaza, Dr. Chatuphale Marg

Shivaji Cross road, Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar

Through its authorised signatory,

Asst. Manager, Legal Hub,

Aurangabad D.O. Aurangabad.

...Appellant

Versus

1.

Teresa Simon Chakranarayan

Age 51 yrs, Occ. Household.

2.

Sunny Simon Chakranarayan

Age 27 yrs, Occ. Education.

3.

Vikas Simon Chakranayaran

Age 25 yrs, Occ. Education.

R/o. Rahuri Factory Karalewadi

Tq. Rahuri Dist. Jalgaon.

4.

Bharat Yosef Chokhar

Age Major, Occ. Driver,

R/o Nimbhere Tq. Rahuri,

Dist. Ahmednagar.

5.

Anil Madhavrao Said

Age Major, Occ. Business,

R/o Ward No.2 Kazibaba Road

Shrirampur Tq. Shrirampur

Dist. Ahmednagar.

...

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Dhananjay P. Deshpande

Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Rahul R. Karpe

...

CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.

DATED : 01^st March, 2019.

915-FA-1968-2018 .odt

(2)

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

.

With consent of the learned counsel appearing for

the parties, the matter is heard finally at the admission

stage.

2.

The present respondent nos. 1 to 3 had filed the

Motor Accident Claim Petition No.3 of 2017 claiming

compensation on account of death of Simon Chakranarayan

alleging the same to have been caused in a motor accident

happened on 12.11.2016 having involvement of Ape

Rickshaw bearing registration no. MH-17-BD-1020 owned by

present respondent no.5 and insured with appellant-

insurance company. Respondent nos. 1 to 3, who are

hereinafter referred to as the 'claimants' had filed the

aforesaid claim petition against the driver, owner and insurer

of the said Ape Rickshaw claiming compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- alleging the accident to have been caused

because of the negligence on part of the driver of the said

Ape Rickshaw. The petition was resisted by the appellant-

insurance company mainly on the ground that the driver of

the Ape Rickshaw was not holding a valid driving licence to

drive the transport vehicle i.e. the offending Ape Rickshaw.

The Tribunal however, turned down the said objection and

held the appellant-insurance company jointly and severally

915-FA-1968-2018 .odt

(3)

liable to pay the compensation of Rs.4,59,000/- to the

claimants along with the owner of the Auto Ape Rickshaw.

Aggrieved by, the appellant-insurance company has

preferred the appeal.

3.

In the appeal, the main ground of objection as

has been raised by the appellant-insurance company is

pertaining to the driving licence of the driver of the Auto Ape

Rickshaw. However, the objection so raised would not

sustain in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of “Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental

Insurance Company Limited, 2017 AIR(SC) 3668”. The

evidence on record shows that on the date of accident i.e.

on 12.11.2016, the driver of the Auto Ape Rickshaw though

was not holding the driving licence to drive the transport

vehicle, the driving licence issued in favour of the said driver

was for the period upto 25.07.2026 for light motor vehicles.

In the said licence it was mentioned that it was valid so far

as the transport vehicles are concerned for the period upto

05.01.2013. It was thus evident that though the validity of

the licence in transport category was expired in the year

2013, the validity of non-transport licence was till the year

2026. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Mukund

Dewangan' (cited supra) has held that light motor vehicle

915-FA-1968-2018 .odt

(4)

includes transport vehicle also and as such the holder of

light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the

class including the transport vehicles. In view of the law

laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as above, the only

objection raised by the appellant-insurance company