NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs. VIRENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Only ground on which thrust was laid by Shri Ratish Sharma at the time of hearing was that the driver of the vehicle, namely, Shri Virender Singh, respondent -owner, was not holding an effective and valid driving license to have driven the Maxi -Cab bearing registration No. HP -01 -8312. Its being insured and having met with accident are the facts which were not disputed on behalf of the appellant.

(2.) Per Mr. Sharma, in order to enable the driver to have driven the Maxi -Cab, an endorsement from the appropriate Licensing Authority was required on his license whereby he could drive the Light Transport Vehicle (LT.V). Two other pleas were also urged by Mr. Sharma that salvage has not been returned till date. Respondent may be directed to either deliver salvage or its cost as assessed by the Surveyor at Rs.15,000/ - may be ordered to be reduced from the compensation awarded. Lastly, it was urged by him that interest needs to be reduced to 6% per annum. With a view to support his submission regarding driving license Shri Sharma placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Shri Suraj Parkash & others. Latest HLJ 2000 (HP) 555. AH these pleas have been controverted by Mr. Peeyush Verma, learned counsel for the respondent According to him, his client was holding a valid and effective driving license where under he was authorized to have driven the vehicle when it met with an accident He placed reliance on the provisions of Section 2(21) and 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. According to him, admittedly the Maxi -Cab in question is a light Motor Vehicles (L.M.V.) and its gross vehicle weight did not exceed 7500 kgs. Regarding interest, he submitted that it calls for no interference as allowed by the Forum below. Similarly, he urged that his client shall deliver the salvage within reasonable time as may be fixed by us to the appellant and in case he fate to do the needful by or before such date, amount of Rs.15,000/ - may be deducted from out of Rs.1,40,553/ - awarded by the Forum below.

(3.) We shall deal with the last submissions first So far rate of interest is concerned, it is reasonable and is in consonance with the rate that is being allowed by the National Commission as wed as the this Commission. In our view, it is neither excessive nor un -reasonable, therefore, plea urged on behalf of the appellant is rejected. 4 So far adjustment of Rs.15,000/ - is concerned, we feel that respondent must hand over the salvage, in view of the submission made by Mr. Peeyush Verma. Thus it is ordered that the salvage shall be handed over by the respondent to the appellant against receipt at Hamirpur Branch office of the appellant by or before 30.4.2006. It is only thereafter that the respondent shall be entitled to apply for refund of the amount that has been deposited by the appellant alongwith this appeal. In case he fails to do the needful, in such a situation after 30.4.2006, respondent will only be entitled to the sum of Rs.1,25,553/ - instead of Rs.1,40,553/ - as ordered by the Forum below with interest @ 9% on this amount i.e. Rs.1,25,553/ - only, besides compensation and cost of litigation as assessed by the Forum. Ordered accordingly.