Chattisgarh High CourtNational Insurance Company Limited vs Yomlal on 25 October, 2017Author:P. Sam KoshyBench:P. Sam Koshy1

                                                                       NAFR
         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                   Misc. Appeal (C) No. 857 of 2016

   National Insurance Company Limited through the Divisional Manager,
   Divisional Office, in front of Rajbandha Ground, G. E. Road, Raipur,
   District Raipur, Chhattisgarh...(Insurer) ... Non Applicant No. 2
                                                                ---- Appellant
                                 Versus
1. Yomlal S/o Ramkrishna Thakur, aged about 38 years, permanent address
   Village Nagargaon, Police Station Dharsinwa, District Raipur,
   Chhattisgarh
2. Santosh Kumar S/o Dukhuram Dewangan, R/o Gobra Nawapara Ward
   No. 18, Police Station Gobra Nawapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.....
   (Driver & Owner) ......(Claimant)
                                                            ---- Respondentsand

                   Misc. Appeal (C) No. 734 of 2016

   National Insurance Company Limited through the Divisional Manager,
   Divisional Office- in front of Rajbandha Ground, G.E. Road, Raipur,
   District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...................(Insurer)---- Appellant
                                    Vs1. Smt. Satrupa @ Kusum Wd/o late Chhaganlal Thakur, aged about 30
   years, R/o Village- Nagargaon, P.S.- Dharsinwa, District- Raipur,
   Chhattisgarh2. Ku. Yajaswani D/o late Chhaganlal Thakur, aged about 5 years, minor
   represented through mother Smt. Satrupa @ Kusum, R/o Village-
   Nagargaon, P.S.- Dharsinwa, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh3. Shubham S/o Late Chhaganlal Thakur, aged about 5 years, minor
   represented through mother Smt. Satrupa @ Kusum, R/o Village-
   Nagargaon, P.S.- Dharsinwa, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh4. Krishna Bai W/o Ramkrishna Thakur, aged about 60 years, R/o Village-
   Nagargaon, P.S.- Dharsinwa, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh5. Ramkrishna Thakur S/o late Chandulal, aged about 65 years, R/o Village-
   Nagargaon, P.S.- Dharsinwa, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh6. Kedarnath S/o Ramkrishna Thakur, aged about 22 years, R/o Village-
   Nagargaon, P.S.- Dharsinwa, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh7. Digeshwar S/o Ramkrishna Thakur, aged about 18 years, R/o Village-
   Nagargaon, P.S.- Dharsinwa, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh .................
   (Claimants)8. Santosh Kumar S/o Dukhuram Dewangan, R/o Gobra Nawapara, Ward
   No.18,    Police       Station-       Gobra    Nawapara, District- Raipur,
   Chhattisgarh .................(Driver & Owner)---- Respondents2For Appellant                     :     Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate


                       Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                                 Order On Board
25/10/2017

       Both the appeals underSection 173of the Motor Vehicles Act have been

preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 11.02.2016

passed by the 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) in

Claim Case Nos. 283/2014 and 268/2014.            Vide the impugned award, the

Tribunal has in a proceeding underSection 166of the MV Act awarded

compensation of Rs.82,177/- in Claim Case No. 283/14 and Rs.7,07,692/- in

Claim Case No.268/14         with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of

application.2.     The only ground raised by the Insurance Company in both the appeals is

that the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time did not have

a proper endorsement for driving a transport vehicle and therefore it amounts to

a breach of policy condition and therefore the Insurance Company has been

wrongly fastened with the liability of payment of compensation.3.     This issue stands squarely decided by the larger Bench decision of the

Supreme Court in the case ofMukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance

Company Limitedreported in AIR 2017 SC 3668        wherein it has been

specifically decided by the Supreme Court that merely because there was no

endorsement regarding permission to drive the transport vehicle pertaining to

the same category of vehicle by itself        would not absolve the Insurance

Company of its liability.4.In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the case

ofMukund Dewangan(supra), this Court is of the opinion that since the3present appeals stand squarely covered bythe said judgment, nothing further

        remains to be adjudicated upon.5.    Thus, both the    appeals of the Insurance Company being devoid of

        merits, deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed.Sd/-(P. Sam Koshy)
                                                                    JUDGE




Bhola