BANT SINGH Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second bout of litigation, the complainant was constrained to take. Earlier complaint was filed and direction was given to the opposite party, the Insurance Company to appoint the Surveyor again to assess the loss on account of damage caused. Since no assessment was made, the complaint was filed. The present complaint on which the District Forum, Patiala passed the impugned order dated April 23, 1998 dismissing the complaint that Bant Singh, complainant is in appeal.

(2.) Bant Singh is owner of tractor No. PB-42-0275. The same was insured with the New India Assurance Company, the opposite party for Rs.1,60,000/- vide policy Ex. R-8. The policy was valid with effect from April 5, 1993 for a period of one year. The tractor was damaged in an accident on December 5, 1993. Lakhwinder Singh who had suffered injuries in the accident had filed a motor accident claim case. With regard to the damage caused to the tractor the complainant who is owner of the tractor lodged claim with the Insurance Company. As already stated above, the claim was not settled that he had to approach the District Forum twice. The plea taken up by the Insurance Company was that Lakhwinder Singh was driving the tractor and was not possessing valid driving licence. Before the Surveyor the complainant did not cooperate in furnishing necessary documents. The complainant's case was that Angrej Singh was driving tractor at the relevant time and he was possessing a valid driving licence. The District Forum vide the impugned order while dismissing the complaint observed that Lakhwinder Singh was driving the tractor and was not holding valid driving licence and hence dismissed the complaint. The copy of the FIR lodged by Lakhwinder Singh is Annexure C-10. The perusal of the same would show that Lakhwinder Singh was coming from village Badshahpur and was going to village Nanke, which is situated on Samana-Patiala Road. It further recites that a truck came from the Samana side and hit the tractor from the back. To the same effect is the story of Lakhwinder Singh given before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, copy of which exists at page No.119 of the District Forum's record. The question of person driving a vehicle possessing a valid driving licence is relevant only if the question of his negligence in causing the accident is to be determined. But in the set of circumstances as briefly noticed above, when the other vehicle i. e. the truck came from behind and had hit the tractor, it would be prima facie 100% negligence of the driver of the truck. That being the position, the question of driver of the tractor possessing driving licence or not becomes irrelevant. This view we have expressed in one of the cases and we affirm the same. It is, therefore, in the present case immaterial whether Angrej Singh was driving tractor or Lakhwinder Singh and on the ground that Lakhwinder Singh was not possessing valid driving licence, the District Forum was not justified in dismissing the complaint.

(3.) Since damage was caused to the tractor, which was insured with the opposite party, which fact is not being disputed, the relevant question is as to how much compensation is to be granted to the complainant. The Surveyor appointed did not make any assessment of the loss suffered. However details of the parts of the tractor found damaged were noticed by the Surveyor in his report Ex. C-14. The contention of Counsel for the Insurance Company is that the complainant did not furnish estimate or the bills for getting repairs affected to the tractor and for that reason, the Surveyor was unable to assess the loss; it cannot be accepted. When the Insurance Company had appointed the Surveyor, it was his duty to assess the loss after noticing the damage caused. If any estimate was to be got prepared, it was not difficult for him to get the estimate from the market or from a workshop. The fact remains that the report of the Surveyor is silent on this aspect. The only evidence existing on the record is estimate Ex. C-9 produced by the complainant. The total of such items done by the Counsel for the complainant is Rs.87,650/-. However, in the complaint the complainant has claimed Rs.95,000/-. Thus the complainant is entitled to the aforesaid amount of Rs.87,650/- only from the Insurance Company and we allow the same.