NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. RAJ PAUL KAUSHAL
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2009-10-5
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on October 01,2009

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
Raj Paul Kaushal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ARUN KUMAR GOEL - (1.) INSURANCE Company has challenged the order of District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 5.9.2008. By means of impugned order while allowing Consumer Complaint No. 368/2005, appellants have been directed to pay Rs. 31,745 to the respondent within 30 days after the receipt of copy of the said order, failing which it will carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of complaint i.e. 14.12.2005 till its realization. In addition to this, a sum of Rs. 5,000 for causing mental pain, agony and inconvenience, as also Rs. 1,000 by way of cost of litigation has also been allowed. Hence, this appeal.
(2.) BUS bearing Registration No. HP -40 -5182 being insured with the appellants on 31.8.2004 under valid policy of insurance when it met with accident near lower Menjha is admitted between the parties. Further as per the case of the respondent, in accordance with the Stage Carriage Service Permit, copy whereof is Annexure OP.16, its capacity was not less than 42 seats not more than 52. Registration Certificate (R.C.) gives the seating capacity including driver of the vehicle to be 42+2, as per Annexure OP.15.
(3.) IN the light of these facts, after accident claim was lodged with the Insurance Company. F.I.R. was also registered regarding the accident. Copy of the F.I.R. is Annexure OP.17. F.I.R. was lodged by one Suresh Kumar. Amongst other things, it is mentioned in Annexure OP.17, that at the time of accident, there were 60/65 passengers who were there in the bus. Appellants filed motor claim form, copy whereof is Annexure OP.10 and according to it, in its Column No. 7, under the heading, 'THIRD PARTY INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE', under Clause (d) - Name and Address of any person/Hospital giving medical attention to injured person, "60 Passengers injured in mishap", is mentioned. Claim form along with the R.C., Annexure OP.15 as well as route permit were not disputed on behalf of the respondent at the time of hearing of this appeal. Record of the complaint file further shows that the stand of the respondent in the complaint was that when the bus was on its way, at the site of accident, with a view to give way to a scooterist, it was taken on the Kucha portion of the road. Thus, according to the learned Counsel for the respondent, the bus was stationary. All of a sudden, the Kucha portion of the road below the bus sagged and as a result of it, accident was caused. If this was the factual position established from the material on record of the complaint file, then the impugned order deserves to be upheld. Other facts are not being noted in detail as those have been incorporated in the impugned order of the District Forum below, and according to us are not material for adjudicating upon the controversy involved in this appeal.;


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