Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 486 (HP)

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD v. C. R. VERMA

2005-12-22

A.K.GOEL, ONKAR CHAND THAKUR, PREM CHAUHAN

body2005
ORDER Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Retd.) President :- Vide impugned order, appellant has been directed to indemnify respondent No. 1 to the extent of Rs. 80,594/- with the interest of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 20.3.2002 till actual payment. It has also been held liable to pay litigation cost quantified at Rs. 2500/-. Respondent No. 1 purchased house building material from Chandigarh and entrusted the same for transportation to respondent No. 2. Goods receipt issued in this behalf is Annexure A-5 on the file of the Forum. Goods were to be transported from Chandigarh to Sainj, (H.P.). These were in the process of transportation in vehicle No. CH-01S-9443 of respondent No.2, Varinder KUmar. When it reached near Kufri this truck met with an accident. After the accident FIR No. 127/2000 was registered at Police Station, Dhalli, Tehsil and District Shimla. 2. Vehicle was insured with the appellant on the date of accident. Entire goods of the aforesaid value which were in the process of transportation were lost due to the accident in question therefore, for redressal of his grievance, respondent No. 1 filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 3. Forum below issued notices to the appellant as well as to respondent No. 2 & 3. Both of them were proceeded ex parte, whereas the appellant contested and resisted the claim of respondent No. 1. Its stand was that there was no policy issued by it covering risk of goods in transit, as such it was not liable for payment of any compensation. Respondent No. 1 never approached nor lodged any claim with it, i.e. appellant as Insurer of the truck in question. Forum below after hearing the parties has allowed the complaint by ordering the payment of amount as aforesaid. Appellant feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order has preferred this appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the impugned order cannot be upheld on any grounds whatsoever. Much emphasis was laid by him on Insurance policy Annexure R-1/1 particularly its Section-II - Liability to Third Parties and its Clause-I proviso-(d) by referring to this. Appellant feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order has preferred this appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the impugned order cannot be upheld on any grounds whatsoever. Much emphasis was laid by him on Insurance policy Annexure R-1/1 particularly its Section-II - Liability to Third Parties and its Clause-I proviso-(d) by referring to this. He urged, that contract of Insurance clearly exonerates his client of liability of goods as in the present case which were lost in transit due to accident He also urged that in no case interest could have been levied at the rate of more than 9% p.a. Both these pleas were controverted on behalf of respondent No. 1 by his learned Counsel. According to him when a reference is made to clause-1 of Section II, Liability to Third Parties, liability to indemnify his client is clearly covered. Alternatively it was urged by him that if this commission comes to the conclusion that appellant was not liable, still his client being third party may be ordered to be indemnified by the appellant, and liberty may be reserved to in (the appellant), to have such recourse in if any, as is as permissible in law to recover the amount from respondent No. 2 and 3 jointly or severally. Regarding interest he submitted that no exception can be taken to its being allowed @ 12% p.a. as ordered by the Forum below. 5. Before dealing with respective submissions urged on behalf of the parties we may notice that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended from time to time, is a beneficial piece of legislation meant for expeditious redressal of the grievances of the consumers, like respondent No. 1 in a summary and expeditious manner. Thus interpretation which negatives the object sought to be achieved by this Act has always to be avoided. Object and reasons for enacting a legislation like the present one also assume significance. 6. Truck having met with accident and own damage claim having been settled by appellant in the sum of Rs. 39034/- is admitted in its reply to the complaint. This fact is admitted in preliminary objection No. 4 of reply. Object and reasons for enacting a legislation like the present one also assume significance. 6. Truck having met with accident and own damage claim having been settled by appellant in the sum of Rs. 39034/- is admitted in its reply to the complaint. This fact is admitted in preliminary objection No. 4 of reply. Reliance placed by appellant on Surveyors report, i.e. Annexure R-2/1 to Annexure R-2/5 is misconceived, because there is nothing on record produced by the appellant to suggest as to whether any reference was made to the Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Fit. Lt. Ajit Singh VM (Retd.) to verify and report whether any goods were carried at the time of accident as well as those having been lost due to accident in question. Vehicle having been hired stands established by respondent No. 1 in his affidavit before the District Forum below and also from documents on record, thus we are satisfied that goods covered vide Annexure A-1 to A-4, A-6 and A-7 were in the process of being transported from Chandigarh to Sainj in Teh. Theog. These were lost due to accident in question. Said respondent No. 1 being a third party, appellant cannot be absolved of its liability to indemnify him. As such holding the appellant liable to pay the sum of Rs. 80594/- with 12% p.a. interest, besides Rs. 2500/- as cost is a finding recorded by the Forum below which in our considered view calls for no interference. Ordered accordingly. 7. Since we have held that in the circumstances of the case appellant is liable to indemnify respondent No. 1 as a third party, we further hold that if it has any right to recover this amount from respondent No. 2 & 3 interest of justice will be well served if order of Forum below in complaint No. 84/2002, decided on 17.8.2004, in case titled C.R. Verma v. K.B. Transporters Association and others is modified by holding that appellant if in accordance with law as well as in terms of policy, if can have recourse for recovery of this amount against respondent No. 2 and 3 and is able to establish the same by legally acceptable evidence, it will be entitled to recover it. We however clarify in this behalf that we have not at all gone into this aspect of the case and the same is left upon. We however clarify in this behalf that we have not at all gone into this aspect of the case and the same is left upon. Subject to this modification order of the District Forum below is upheld and consequently appeal stands finally disposed of in these terms. In view of the order passed in main appeal all interim orders passed from time to time shall stand vacated forthwith. Parties are left to their own cost.