Judgment:
FAO No.4186 and 4187 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:11.02.2014 1.
FAO No.4186 of 2013(O&M) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd........Appellant versus Ajit and others ........Respondents 2.
FAO No.4187 of 2013(O&M) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd........Appellant versus Pawan and others ........Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Ms.Vandana Malhotra,Advocate for the appellant.
**** 1.
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2.
To be referred to the Reporters or not?.
3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Ajay Tewari, J.
(Oral).CM No.16925-CII of 2013 in FAO No.4186 of 2013 For the reasons recorded in the application, delay of 14 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
CM No.16927-CII of 2013 in FAO No.4187 of 2013 For the reasons recorded in the application, delay of 19 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
Nagpal Sunita 2014.03.12 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.4186 and 4187 of 2013 2 CM stands disposed of.
The aforesaid two appeals have been filed by the insurance company against the common award dated 15.04.2013 passed by MACT, Palwal.
Since common questions of law and facts are involved therein, the same are being decided by this common judgment.
However, for ready reference facts are being taken from FAO No.4186 of 2013.
Brief facts of the case are that on 19.09.2010 Pawan along with Deepu was going in a three wheeler being driven by him.
It was hit by a Tata Safari bearing No.DL-1V-8171 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.
Learned MACT held it a head-on collision and both the vehicles were made liable for the same.
Petitioner Ajit remained admitted in Om Spero Hospitl, Palwal from 19.9.2010 to 24.09.2010.
Since petitioner Ajit proved medical bills to the tune of Rs.36,490/- for the purchase of medicines, he was awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- as medical expenses.
He was also awarded Rs.5000/- each for transportation, attendant charges and special diet.
Rs.10,000/- were also awarded to him for pain and suffering.
Thus, in all he was awarded Rs.65,000/- as compensation to be paid by all the respondents jointly and severally.
The only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the insurance company should have been granted recovery rights because the driver of the Safari did not have the necessary endorsement on his licence.
As per the registration certificate of the vehicle it has been registered as 'LPV'.
After considering the entire mater the Tribunal has held that since the driver had the licence to dive LMV he would be deemed to be authorised to drive the Tata Safari.
Learned counsel has argued that LPV is Nagpal Sunita 2014.03.12 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.4186 and 4187 of 2013 3 a light passenger vehicle.
He has placed no material on record to substantiate this assertion .
The Tribunal has correctly considered this aspect and has foisted the liability on the insurance company.
In Section 107 of the Motor Vehicles Act there is no classification as LPV.
Consequently in the absence of any other material on record showing that the vehicle was being plied as a commercial vehicle, it cannot be said that the vehicle was a transport vehicle.
Both the appeals are dismissed.
(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 11, 2014 sunita Nagpal Sunita 2014.03.12 11:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document