H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance ... vs Gayatri Ratre
2025 Latest Caselaw 33 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance ... vs Gayatri Ratre on 1 May, 2025

                                                      1




          Digitally
          signed by
                                                                    2025:CGHC:20039
          SOURABH
SOURABH
PATEL
          PATEL
          Date:
                                                                                 NAFR
          2025.05.05
          12:42:30
          +0530
                             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                          MAC No. 1893 of 2019

                       1. H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd Branch Office -
                          Lila Business Park , 6th Floor, Andheri Kurla , R.D. Mumbai -
                          400059. At Present - Devendra Nagar Road Raipur
                          Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle No. Cg-11-Ab-3289), District :
                          Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                            --- Appellant
                                                   versus

                       1. Gayatri Ratre W/o Late Amar Singh Ratre Aged About 34 Years
                          R/o Village - Marda, Tehsil And Dist. - Balaudabazar
                          Chhattisgarh. At Present Village Hadaspur, Tehsil And Dist. -
                          Pamgarh, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh.
                       2. Azad Ratre S/o Late Amar Singh Aged About 8 Years Through
                          Their Mother Smt. Gayatri Ratre . R/o Village - Marda, Tehsil
                          And Dist. - Balaudabazar Chhattisgarh. At Present Village
                          Hadaspur, Tehsil And Dist. - Pamgarh, District - Janjgir -
                          Champa Chhattisgarh.
                       3. Aman Ratre S/o Late Amar Singh Ratre Aged About 7 Years
                          Through Their Mother Smt . Gayatri Ratre . Through Their
                          Mother Smt. Gayatri Ratre . R/o Village - Marda, Tehsil And
                          Dist. - Balaudabazar Chhattisgarh. At Present Village
                          Hadaspur, Tehsil And Dist. - Pamgarh, District - Janjgir -
                          Champa Chhattisgarh.
                       4. Ku. Meera Ratre D/o Late Amar Singh Ratre Aged About 5
                          Years Through Their Mother Smt. Gayatri Ratre. Through Their
                          Mother Smt. Gayatri Ratre . R/o Village - Marda, Tehsil And
                          Dist. - Balaudabazar Chhattisgarh. At Present Village
                          Hadaspur, Tehsil And Dist. - Pamgarh, District - Janjgir -
                          Champa Chhattisgarh.
                       5. Laxmin Ratre W/o Laxman Ratre, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
                          Village - Marda, Tehsil And Dist. - Balaudabazar Chhattisgarh.
                          At Present Village Hadaspur, Tehsil And Dist. - Pamgarh,
                          District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh.
                       6. Laxman Ratre S/o Late Mukundram Ratre Aged About 72 Years
                          R/o Village - Marda, Tehsil And Dist. - Balaudabazar
                                2

   Chhattisgarh. At Present Village Hadaspur, Tehsil And Dist. -
   Pamgarh, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh
   (Claimants).
7. Golu Sahu S/o Mannu Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Thana
   And Tehsil - Pamgarh , District - Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.
   (Driver Of Vehicle No CG-11-Ab-3289).
8. Bhimram Sahu S/o Gokul Prasad Sahu Aged About 62 Years
   R/o Village - Rasota, Tehsil And Thana - Pamgarh, District
   Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle No. CG-11-
   Ab-3289).
                                                  ---Respondents

                    MAC No. 1899 of 2019

1. H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office,
   Lila, Business Park, 6th Floor, Andheri Kurla, R. D. Mumbai
   400059 At Present Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh
   (Insurer Of Vehicle No. Cg-11-Ab-3289).
                                                   ---Appellant
                            Versus

1. Smt. Prithvi Ajay W/o Late Santosh Kumar Ajay Aged About 29
   Years R/o Village Baijnath, Tehsil And P. S. Kasdol, District
   Balaudabazar Chhattisgarh At Present Village Dhangaon, Tehsil
   And P. S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.
2. Minor Ashutosh Kumar Ajay S/o Santosh Ajay Aged About 9
   Years Respondent No. 2 Is Minor And Hence Representing
   Through Their Mother (Respondent No. 01) Smt. Prithvi Ajay,
   R/o Village Baijnath, Tehsil And P. S. Kasdol, District
   Balaudabazar Chhattisgarh At Present Village Dhangaon, Tehsil
   And P. S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.
3. Minor Adarsh Kumar Ajay S/o Santosh Ajay Aged About 8
   Years Respondent No. 3 Is Minor And Hence Representing
   Through Their Mother (Respondent No. 01) Smt. Prithvi Ajay,
   R/o Village Baijnath, Tehsil And P. S. Kasdol, District
   Balaudabazar Chhattisgarh At Present Village Dhangaon, Tehsil
   And P. S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.
4. Minor Arman Ajay S/o Santosh Ajay Aged About 8 Years
   Respondent No. 4 Is Minor And Hence Representing Through
   Their Mother (Respondent No. 01) Smt. Prithvi Ajay, R/o Village
   Baijnath, Tehsil And P. S. Kasdol, District Balaudabazar
   Chhattisgarh At Present Village Dhangaon, Tehsil And P. S.
   Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.
5. Minor Arman Ajay S/o Santosh Ajay Aged About 7 Years R/o
   Village Baijnath, Tehsil And P. S. Kasdol, District Balaudabazar
                                  3

     Chhattisgarh At Present Village Dhangaon, Tehsil And P. S.
     Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.
  6. Bhuribai Ajay W/o Late Boloram Ajay Aged About 63 Years R/o
     Village Baijnath, Tehsil And P. S. Kasdol, District Balaudabazar
     Chhattisgarh At Present Village Dhangaon, Tehsil And P. S.
     Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh (Claimants).
  7. Golu Sahu S/o Mannu Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Thana
     And Tehsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh
     (Driver).
  8. Bhimram Sahu S/o Gokul Prasad Sahu Aged About 62 Years
     R/o Village Rasota, Tehsil And Thana Pamgarh, District Janjgir
     Champa Chhattisgarh (Owner).
                                                     --- Respondents


In MAC No. 1893/2019
For Appellant              :   Mr. Tanmay Rai, Advocate on behalf
                               of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 to 6 :    Mr. T.R. Patel, Advocate on behalf of
                                Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 7 & 8 :     Mr. Bhupendra Sukul, advocate on
                                behalf of Mr. Prabhakar Singh
                                Chandel, Advocate.
In MAC No. 1899/2019
For Appellant              :    Mr. Tanmay Rai, Advocate on behalf
                                of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 to 6 :    Mr. T.R. Patel, Advocate on behalf of
                                Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 7 & 8 :     Mr. Bhupendra Sukul, Advocate on
                                behalf of Mr. Prabhakar Singh
                                sChandel, Advocate.


          Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.

Order on Board (01.05.2025)

1. Since these appeals arise out of the same accident dated 11.07.2018 and filed by the Insurer of the offending vehicle, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order.

2. Both the appeals are preferred by Insurer against the award dated 26.07.2019 passed by the learned 03 rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in

Motor Accident Claim Cases No.90/2018 & 89/2018, respectively.

3. The case of the claimants was that on 11.07.2018, Amar Singh Ratre and Santosh Ajay were going on a motorcycle towards Tannaud, Chharchhed (Kasdol) and when they reached near Tannaud-Nawagaon turn, the driver of the offending vehicle J.C.B. bearing registration No. CG-11-AB-3289, Which was engaged in clayed material (murum) spreading work dashed the motorcycle while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which Amar Singh Ratre and Santosh Ajay sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The report of the said accident was filed in Shivrinarayan police station where a crime was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. JCB. Therefore, legal heirs of deceased Amar Singh Ratre filed a Motor Accident Claim Case No. 90/2018 under Sections 166 of the M.V. Act claiming a total compensation of Rs. 37,68,000/- wherein a total compensation of Rs. 11,87,500/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants and legal heirs of deceased Santosh Ajay filed a Motor Accident claim case No. 89/2018 under Sections 166 of M.V. Act claiming a total compensation of Rs. 54,72,000/- wherein a total compensation of Rs. 28,64,502/- has been awarded in the favour of claimants. The Claims Tribunal had not found any breach of insurance policy terms and held the insurance company liable for payment of compensation against which these appeals have been preferred.

4. As both the appeals have been filed by the appellant/insurance

company, in which it has been arguing that the driver of the

offending vehicle, Devendra @ Golu did not have a valid and

effective driving license at the time of accident due to which,

there is a breach of policy condition but the learned Claims

Tribunal did not consider it a breach. Hence, the insurance

company should be exonerated considering it a breach.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

owner/driver of the offending vehicle opposes the contention

made by learned counsel for the appellant and argued that the

findings of the learned Claims tribunal in this regard is correct

and does not call for any interference.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants supported the impugned award and submitted that the award in question is based on the proper appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence which does not call for any interference.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

8. It is undisputed that the offending vehicle is a JCB, and the driver Devendra @ Golu possessed a valid and effective LMV driving license (Ex-NA2C). The branch manager Praveen Sijaria and investigator Laxminarayan Lohar have been examined on behalf of the Insurance company and have stated that driving license with special category endorsement is mandatory for the offending vehicle JCB, and the driver Devendra @ Golu did not have the same. The investigator Laxminarayan Lohar has sought the information under the Right to Information Act from the Regional Transport Officer, Raipur, regarding the type of license required to drive a JCB and as per the obtained information, HGV (heavy goods vehicle) driving license is required to drive the same. But Laxminarayan Lohar has neither presented the information obtained under the Right to Information Act on record nor produced any competent officer/authority to examine before the Tribunal regarding the said information.

9. On the other hand, the driver of the offending vehicle, Devendra @ Golu stated that his driving license is as Ex-NA2C and the appellant/insurance company has itself summoned Jagdish

Tiwari, Assistant Grade-3 of the District Transport Office, Janjgir-Champa as a witness and got him examined. Jagdish Tiwari, who is a witness of the appellant/insurance company has stated that the RC book of the offending vehicle, which was issued from his office, is Ex-NA6, which shows that the laden weight of the offending vehicle JCB was 7460 Kgs i.e. less than 7500 Kgs. The above fact is established from the statement of Jagdish Tiwari, summoned by the appellant/insurance company itself, and in respect of which a copy of the RC book of the offending vehicle has also been presented and he also admitted in his statement that the driver of the offending vehicle JCB, Devendra @ Golu possessed a valid driving licence on the date of accident.

10. The issue with respect to persons having a particular class of licence authorising to drive a particular type of vehicle, but on the date of accident found driving the vehicle other than the type of vehicle mentioned in the licence, but of the same category, have been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 and held as under:-

60.1. ''Light motor vehicle'' as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54 of 1994.

60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight" of which does

not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28-03-2001 in the form.

11. In light of the above judgment, it is clear that the driver Devendra @ Golu had a valid LMV driving licence. Since the weight of the offending vehicle was 7460 Kgs I..e, less than 7500 Kgs, therefore, the LMV licence was the valid licence for it. The appellant/insurance company has failed to prove a breach of the driving licence conditions. In such a situation, the arguments raised by the appellant/insurance company are not acceptable.

12. Accordingly, both the appeals of appellant/insurance company are hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge

Sourabh P.