UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMITTED facts of this case are that the vehicle in question, a Tempo Trax Jeep, bearing registration No. HP -34A -0949 met with an accident on 1.6.2005. It was insured in the sum of Rs. 2 lacs under a valid policy of insurance with the appellant. It is further not in dispute that Mr. Praveen Kumar was the driver of this vehicle at the time of accident.

(2.) AS a result of accident in question the vehicle was badly damaged. And to make it roadworthy, respondent spent Rs. 60,000/ - and asked the appellant to indemnify him. Instead of doing the needful claim was repudiated on the ground that the driver Mr. Praveen Kumar was not licensed to drive the vehicle in question. Reason being that the vehicle was a registered transport vehicle and the licence of the driver did not bear the requisite endorsement to drive such a vehicle.

(3.) MR . Bahl, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the vehicle in question as per its registration certificate is registered as L.M.V. (TPT). He further submitted that regular instalments of taxes were being paid by the respondents as is evident from the endorsements made in the registration book of the vehicle in question. These are at pages 23 to 28. He also drew our attention to the insurance policy, copy whereof is at page 31 of the complaint file. Licence of Praveen Kumar was also relied upon by Mr. Bahl, photostat copy whereof is at pages 35 to 37 of the complaint filed, which clearly indicates the valid for (eligible) Mcycle/Scooter and L.M. Veh. (NTPT). In the face of these proved and admitted facts made out from the record of the case file, decisions of this case need not detain us in the face of the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kusum Rai and others (supra) and of the National Commission in the case of Oriental Insurance Company v. Sohan Singh, Revision Petition No. 982 of 2006 decided on 26.4.2007. So far as case before the National Commission is concerned, it is nearer to the facts of the present case in appeal.