KAMLESH SHARMA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2010-8-3
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on August 10,2010

KAMLESH SHARMA Appellant
VERSUS
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by District Forum Kangra, at Dharamshala whereby Consumer Complaint No.85/2007 was dismissed on 30.11.2009. Shri Jugal Kishore was owner -driver of tractor bearing registration No.HP -38 -3601. It was insured with the respondent on the date of accident when the owner -driver died is admitted.
(2.) DISPUTE between the parties is only, whether the appellants are entitled to personal accident benefits due to death of owner -driver for which the insurer had charged premium of Rs.100/ - extra, or not. It may be appropriate to mention here that that as per policy of insurance Annexure OP -1, three persons are covered and premium of Rs.75/ - for "WC was charged by the insurer at the time when the vehicle was insured. As already observed Rs.100/ - was charged, over and above the premium that is covered by Annexure OP -1. This provided insurance cover in the sum of Rs.2 lacs in the event of any mishap, as is the situation in the present case. Complaint was dismissed relying upon Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with exemplary cost of Rs.5,000/ -, and all the appellants were held jointly and severally liable to payment of this amount.
(3.) WHEN hearing in this appeal commenced Mr. R.K. Khidtta, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, thereby allowing the complaint and consequently directing the respondent to indemnify his clients in the sum of Rs.2 lacs alongwith interest and cost etc., besides compensation for undue harassment. This plea was seriously contested and resisted by Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent -insurance company. As according to her, the impugned order suffers from no infirmity and thus does not call for any interference in this appeal. According to her, insured tractor was a transport vehicle which was registered as such, therefore unless it was also established by acceptable evidence that it was being plied under a valid route permit in -accordance with the provisions of Section 66 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no exception can be taken to the impugned order. There is evidence on record to that effect.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.