Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition challenging the order dated 28-01-2020, passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Jind (‘Respondent 3’), whereby the application filed by the applicant (‘Respondent 2’) was allowed, Vinod S. Bharadwaj, J., stated that the petitioner’s counsel had failed to refer any evidence that establishes that there was any negligence in handling of the vehicle by the driver or that the said training obtained by him was invalid or not worthy acceptance. The requirement of having undergone a certified training course was a prerequisite for seeking an endorsement on the driving license.
Thus, the Court partly set aside the award passed by Respondent 3 and modified it to the extent that the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.54,650, as approved by the Surveyor and assessor of the petitioner with respect to the damage caused to the oil tanker along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing an application till its actual realization.
Background
Respondent 2 was a registered owner of the Truck/Tanker, duly insured by the Insurance Company (‘the petitioner’) for a period valid from 29-03-2016 to 28-03-2017 against the premium of Rs. 33,171 for a sum assured of Rs. 16,00,000. On 31-03-2016, at 4:00 am, the vehicle suffered damages, and a claim was registered with the petitioner, but the claim of Respondent 2 was repudiated by the petitioner on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. However, it was claimed by Respondent 2 that the driver of the vehicle was duly authorised to drive the particular class of vehicle.
The petitioner submitted that there was no endorsement on the Driving Licence of the driver to drive a particular class of vehicle. The vehicle was driven in violation of Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 read with Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Further, there was no endorsement on the said driving licence regarding the authorisation to drive hazardous good vehicle, i.e. the oil tanker. Hence, in the absence of any such endorsement, the claim was rightly repudiated.
On consideration of the evidence led by the parties and the arguments advanced by them in support of their respective claims, the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Jind allowed the application filed by the Respondent 2 and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,30,000 to Respondent along with compensation of Rs. 5,000 with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing an application till its realization. Thus, the present petition was filed by the petitioner.
The petitioner contended that the driving licence possessed by the driver did not have the endorsement authorizing him to drive the vehicle carrying hazardous material and as such, he was not authorized to drive a particular class of vehicle. Further, the petitioner also contended that Respondent 3 had directed the award of Rs. 1,30,000 against the assessed amount of Rs. 54,650, without giving any reasons.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that on the perusal of the award passed by Respondent 3, it was revealed that all the objections were duly dealt with, and specific reliance was placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297. The Court stated that the petitioner’s counsel had failed to refer any evidence that establishes that there was any negligence in handling of the vehicle by the driver or that the said training obtained by him was invalid or not worthy acceptance. The requirement of having undergone a certified training course was a prerequisite for seeking an endorsement on the driving license.
The Court stated that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was evident that the sole document required for seeking an endorsement already stood complied by the driver. There was no evidence led by the petitioner about any negligence and/or carelessness exercised by the driver because of which the accident had occurred or loss was sustained.
The Court stated that the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) were guided by the principles of natural justice, objectivity, fairness, equity and other principles of justice. Once the objections raised by the petitioner was taken into consideration by Respondent 3 and an equitable jurisdiction was exercised, such view could not outrightly be said to be perverse, improper or based on misappropriation of law and facts. The High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review would not ordinarily interfere with an award so passed.
Thus, the Court partly set aside the award passed by Respondent 3 and modified it to the extent that the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.54,650, as approved by the Surveyor and assessor of the petitioner with respect to the damage caused to the oil tanker along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing an application till its actual realization. Further, the Court ordered an additional litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 15,000 over and above the litigation expenses already granted by the Respondent 3.
[Cholamandlam General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vikrant Oil Carrier, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 12134, decided on 27-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Punit Jain, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Shubhkarman Singh Gill, Advocate; Kshitij Sharma, Advocate.
