Bombay High Court
United India Assurance Co Ltd vs Subham Nageshrao Bapure And Ors on 13 October, 2022
Bench: S. G. Dige
1
2707.10FA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2707 OF 2010
United India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Through its Divisional Office,
Divisional Manager,
Osmanpura, Aurangabad.
. .. APPELLANT
(Org. Respondent No.4)
VERSUS
1. Subham S/o Nageshrao Bapure
Age : 11 years, u/g of real
mother Parwatibai w/o Nageshrao Bapure
Age : 40 years, Occ : Household,
R/o Nideban, Tq. Udgir
2. Elyas S/o Ekbal Shaikh
Age : 25 years, Occ : Driver,
R/o Latur
(Driver of offending tractor
Trolley)
3. Mohd. Yunus S/o Shaikh Mohd.
Ekbal, Age : major, occ : Business,
R/o Parkatte Galli, Pet Darwaza,
Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
4. Shaikh Mohd Fras S/o Shaikh Mohd
Ekbal, Age : major, Occ : Business,
R/o Paratte Galli, Pet Darwaza,
Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
. .. RESPONDENTS
(R.No.1 - orig. claimant &
R.nos.2 to 4 - Ori. R. Nos.1 to 3)
::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2022 19:49:42 :::
2
2707.10FA
...
Mr.S.V. Kulkarni, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Madhav N. Kalyane h/f Mr. Ram S. Shinde, advocate for
respondent no.1.
...
CORAM : S.G.DIGE, J.
RESERVED ON : 30.09.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 13.10.2022
JUDGMENT :
. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Udgir, the appellant - original respondent no.4
Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.
Brief facts of the case are as under :
2. On 19th February, 2008, the claimant along with
his friend and brother were proceeding towards flour mill
on bicycle. When they reached near the house of one
Chandrakant Kulkarni at about 3.30 p.m., one tractor-
trolley driven by respondent no.1 bearing registration
No.MH-24 D-579 came from back side in a fast speed and
negligent manner and had given forceful dash to the
2707.10FA
bicycle, due to which the claimant and others seriously
injured. After the accident, the claimant was immediately
admitted in Civil Hospital, Udgir, but doctors advised to
shift him at Civil Hospital, Latur for further treatment.
Thereafter, the relatives of the claimant shifted the claimant
in Government College and Hospital at Latur. After some
treatment, on next day, the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital,
Latur advised to shift the claimant to Solapur for better
treatment, however, the relatives of the claimant admitted
him in Vivekanand Hospital, Latur.
3. Respondent no.1/claimant filed claim petition
for getting compensation before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Udgir (for short 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal has
awarded the compensation. Against the said judgment and
award, this appeal.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant that at the time of driving the tractor, the
driver of the said tractor was not holding driving licence as
2707.10FA
the accident has taken place on 19.02.2008 and the licence
was renewed on 21.04.2008, therefore, it constitutes breach
of terms and conditions of the policy and the driver was not
having a valid and effective driving license in respect of
LMV non transport category. But this fact was not
considered by the Tribunal. The learned counsel further
submits that the risk of the claimant was not covered under
the policy, therefore, it is clearly breach of terms and
conditions of the policy, hence, requested to allow the
appeal.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
respondent no.1 that the issue of non holding the valid and
effective driving licence of transport is no more res integra
as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan
Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017)
14 SCC 663 has held that licence to drive light motor
vehicle includes licence to drive transport vehicle, hence,
the order passed by the Tribunal is legal and valid.
6. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused the
2707.10FA
judgment and order passed by the Tribunal.
7. The issue raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant that at the time of accident, the driver was
holding licence to drive light motor vehicle non transport
category, in my view, this issue is no more res integra as the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan
[supra] has held that licence to drive the light motor vehicle
includes licence to drive transport vehicle. Hence, I do not
agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that at the time of accident, the driver of the
tractor-trolley was not holding proper driving licence.
8. Considering the above, I pass the following
order:-
ORDER
i] The appeal is dismissed.
ii] The respondent no.1/original claimant is permitted to
withdraw the amount along with interest, if already not
withdrawn.
2707.10FA
iii] No order as to costs.
[S.G.DIGE]
JUDGE
SGA
