State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Oic Ltd. vs Neelam Kumari on 24 May, 2007
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA Appeal No. 341/2006. Date of Decision 24.05.2007. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Mythe Estate, Kaithu, Shimla-3, through its Senior Divisional Manager. . Appellant. Versus Smt. Neelam Kumari W/o Sh. Shyam Lal Puri, R/o near PNB Akhara Bazar, Kullu, Tehsil & District Kullu, H.P. . Respondent. Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel, President. Honble Mr. Narinder Singh Thakur, Member.
Honble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.
Whether Approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant. Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the complaint file. Admittedly vehicle bearing registration No. HP-34-B-0119 was a goods carrying commercial vehicle and was a vehicle other than three wheeler. It met with accident on 3.8.2005 during the validity of the policy of insurance. It was a Bajaj Open Pick Up Jeep insured in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- with the respondent. Copy of the policy of Insurance is Annexure R-1.
2. From the narration of the above facts it is evidently clear that the vehicle in question was a goods carrying commercial vehicle other than a three wheeler.
3. Stand of the complainant in his complaint was that the driver at time of accident was holding a licence, copy whereof is placed as Annexure C-IV. This is referred to para 5 (iv) of the complaint. A perusal of Annexure C-IV, the photostat copy of the driving licence produced by the respondent clearly shows that driver Surinder Kumar S/o Kasham Singh was licensed to drive vehicle throughout India. LMV (NT). Even below his photographs, it is clearly mentioned Non TR valid upto 10.3.2021. The only conclusion on a reading of this licence is that the driver Surinder Kumar engaged by the respondent was holding driving licence whereby he was licenced to drive a LMV-non transport. Whereas in the instant case he was admittedly driving a transport vehicle which met with accident. In this background Dr. Sharma submitted that without going into other questions this appeal needs to be allowed. This plea was resisted by Mr. Thakur on behalf of the respondent who submitted that looking to the meagre amount awarded in this case, the appeal may be dismissed without making a precedent for other similar cases.
4. Though number of other pleas were raised on behalf of the parties at the time of hearing but we have not gone into those inasmuch as that the matter relating to endorsement on the licence enabling a driver to be licensed to drive transport vehicle has to be there is no more res-integra, in view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai & Ors. II (2006) CPJ 8 (SC) the National Commission followed this judgment in the case of Abrar Ahmed Ansari Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. 2007 (I) CPC 421. In view of what has been held by the Honble Supreme Court and National commission we are of the view that there is no escape but for allowing this appeal and setting aside the impugned order passed by the District Forum below in Consumer Complaint No. 17/2006, dated 18.8.2006 and consequently dismissing the complaint itself, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly and the appeal is allowed.
5. No other point is urged.
In view of the disposal of the main appeal all interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.
Office will make available a copy of this order to the parties free of costs as per rules.
Shimla.
24th May, 2007. (Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.
President.
(Narinder Singh Thakur), Member.
(Saroj Sharma), Karan* Member.