Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 251 (UTT)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Neelam Saluja

2003-11-07

K.D.SHAHI

body2003
ORDER K.D. Shahi, Chairman- This is Insurance Company's appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.5.2003 passed by the District Forum, Almora, whereby a compensation of Rs. 31,900/- was allowed to the complainant along with interest and cost. . 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Smt. Neelam Saluja has a Maruti Van, which was insured with the appellant. On 28.1.2001 while her husband Virendra was travelling in the van, truck No. UP 01/4448 dashed the van while the truck was being driven negligently and carelessly. The husband of the complainant got injured. The driver of the van Shri Devendra was also seriously injured. The complainant got her van repaired and incurred expenses of Rs. 31,900/-. That Surveyor was appointed by the Company who has also surveyed the loss. In spite of notices, the claim was not allowed, hence, the complaint was filed. 3. The main plea taken by the Insurance Company was that the driver Devendra has got no valid driving licence to drive in hill area. According to the learned Forum, Devendra was driving the vehicle and admittedly, he has got no endorsement for driving the vehicle in hill area. The• learned Counsel for the appellant argued that this is necessary for driving in the hill area. 4. Before us, the provisions of Rule 193 of the Motor Vehicles Act was referred which reads as under: "No person shall drive a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle on a hill road unless his licence to drive such public service vehicle or goods vehicle has been endorsed by a Registering Authority with a permission to drive upon hill roads situated within the jurisdiction of such Registering Authority or in the case of public service vehicle hired by tourists, by the Registering Authority of the State with which reciprocal arrangements on the point have been agreed upon." 5. The bare reading of the rule above shows that this endorsement is necessary in respect of driving of public service vehicle or goods vehicle. This is not for private light vehicles. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant referred the endorsement of two R.T.O. that such an endorsement is necessary. R.T.O. does not make any rule or law. On what basis they have written has not been shown to us. This is not for private light vehicles. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant referred the endorsement of two R.T.O. that such an endorsement is necessary. R.T.O. does not make any rule or law. On what basis they have written has not been shown to us. We wanted to know whether the endorsement made by R.T.O. on the basis of any law, rule, regulation or act. The learned Counsel for the appellant was unable to inform us. It was argued that since the complainant has engaged a private driver, such endorsement is necessary, but for that also no rule or law was shown. Before us, there is only the provision of Rule 193 of the rules made under the Motor Vehicles Act, no other rule or regulation has been shown. The driver was fully competent to drive in the hill area of the type of vehicle this was without any endorsement. The arguments were heard on 4.9.2003, the Counsel of the appellant took time to search Rule, if there was any, but still he did not produce any such rule till date. 7. It was argued that the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that the Surveyor has assessed the loss for Rs. 29,386/-. His assessment was on the basis of inspection by the Surveyor who has actually seen the damage and the extent of loss. The complainant has claimed the amount spent in repairs. If she renewed her vehicle, she shall not be entitled for that amount. We find it appropriate that the amount of award should be the assessment made by the Surveyor. There is nothing to differ from that assessment. ORDER The order and the appeal is to be modified to the extent that the complainant shall get the compensation of Rs. 29,386/- instead of Rs. 31,900/-. All other conditions and order shall remain the same as passed by the learned Forum. Appeal allowed partly.