Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Insurance Company Limited vs Presiding Officer And Another on 20 December, 2012
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
CWP No. 6739 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
CWP No. 6739 of 2012
Date of decision : December 20, 2012
*****
National Insurance Company Limited
............Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer and another
...........Respondent
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
*****
Present: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2-applicant.
*****
MAHESH GROVER, J (ORAL)
The petitioner impugns the award dated 25.11.2011 (Annexure P-1) of the Permanent Lok Adalat passed in favour of the respondent, Charanjit Singh awarding him a compensation of Rs.3,76,000/- on account of the damage to a vehicle. Concededly, the vehicle was ensured and suffered damage in the vehicular accident.
Learned counsel for the petitioner impugns the award on the ground that the respondent was not having a valid driving licence and he was not authorised to drive a tanker which is a hazardous vehicle of transportation and requires specialized training and a particular licence.
CWP No. 6739 of 2012 2
He further contends that the evidence of the District Transport Officer has been ignored by the Permanent Lok Adalat in particular that licence for transportation of hazardous goods are issued only for one year and since the respondent was having a licence which was valid from 28.1.2009 to 27.1.2012 i.e for a period of three years, hence that licence was fake.
I am afraid that the contention raised by the petitioner is without any basis. There is no separate category defined for tankers entitled to ferry hazardous goods. The only definition given in the Motor Vehicles Act is that of `heavy goods vehicle' "heavy goods vehicle" means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms;
A tanker obviously is covered under the definition of "heavy goods vehicle". The respondent was also having a valid driving licence and merely because the report of DTO refers to the issuance a driving licence for carrying hazardous goods whose validity is limited for one year would make no difference to the question of legitimacy of the driving licence of the petitioner unless there was a specific report or material indicating that such a licence was fake.
The second contention that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Permanent Lok Adalat was not authorised to decide the issue on merits. However, I am not CWP No. 6739 of 2012 3 in agreement with the contention so raised for the reason that Section 22-D is explicit in nature. Same is extracted herewith:
"22-D Procedure of Permanent Lok Adalat- The Permanent Lok Adalat shall, while conducting conciliation proceedings or deciding a dispute on merit under this Act, be guided by the principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair lay, equity and other principlees of natural justice, and shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 2008) and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872)."
In view of the above said reasons, I do not find the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner worthy of acceptance and hence the writ petition is held to be without any merit and is dismissed.
December 20, 2012 ( MAHESH GROVER ) ritu JUDGE