NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KEWAL RAM SON OF CHUNI LAL
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
Kewal Ram Son Of Chuni Lal
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) SHRI Mohinder Kumar, Licence Clerk, from the office of Registering & Licensing Authority (R&LA), Sundernagar is present in person alongwith Licence Register containing entry of D.L. of Shri Ram Singh Negi. Record produced by him has been examined by us and has also been seen by learned Counsel for the parties. As per record produced in this case, licence copy whereof is Annexure R.6, was issued in favour of Shri Ram Singh Negi son of Shri Tej Singh Negi, resident of Bhojpur Colony, Sundernagar on 30.5.1989. By means of this driving licence, said driver was licensed to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (L.M.V.) only.
(2.) IN this background, Mr. Ratish Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the vehicle in this case is admittedly a transport vehicle meant and adapted for carriage of goods, therefore according to him, unless it had endorsement authorizing the driver to drive a transport vehicle, he could not have driven the vehicle when it met with accident on the intervening night of 23/24th of September, 2004 near Bharatgarh. As such, according to Mr. Sharma, this appeal deserves to be allowed. Alternatively and without admitting any liability of his client for the payment of compensation, Mr. Sharma also submitted that in the event of appeal being dismissed, value of the salvage needs to be deducted out of the compensation awarded in case the respondent fails to return the same to his client. Both these pleas have been resisted by Mr. Chandel, learned Counsel for the respondent. Per him, the impugned order calls for no interference in the facts and circumstances of this case. Thus, he prayed for upholding the impugned order passed by District Forum, Hamirpur, in Consumer Complaint No.39/2006 on 18.12.2007.
(3.) SO far submission of Mr. Sharma on behalf of the appellant for reduction of the amount of compensation is concerned, we find force in it. Reason being that respondent has either to return the salvage or its value is to be deducted out of the compensation as assessed by the Surveyor who was admittedly appointed by the appellant on receipt of information of accident. Report of Mr. Mohinder Kumar Sharma, Surveyor and Loss Assessor is there and according to him, respondent is entitled to be indemnified to the tune of Rs.1,42,939/ -. Out of this sum, Rs.12,000/ - needs to be deducted, because Mr. Chandel submitted that his clients are not in a position to return the salvage. Accordingly, it is held that the appellant is liable to pay Rs.1,30,939/ - instead of Rs.1,42,939/ - as ordered by the District Forum below and to this extent the impugned order needs to be modified. Ordered accordingly.
So far submission of Mr. Ratish Sharma that the licence of the driver was not endorsed to drive a transport vehicle is concerned, this is a plea being noted to be rejected in the face of Annexure R.6. There is clear cut endorsement to the effect that the licence was endorsed to drive a transport vehicle. Nothing to the contrary has been brought to our notice from the complaint file or from the record brought by the witness today. In the face of these circumstances, this plea merits rejection.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.