National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Koja Ram and ors. - Court Judgment |
| Insurance;Motor vehicle |
| Rajasthan High Court |
| Jan-06-2003 |
| S.B. Civil Misc. Appeals No. 832-835 of 2002 |
| N.P. Gupta, J. |
| 2004(5)WLC757; 2003(2)WLN587 |
| National Insurance Co. Ltd. |
| Koja Ram and ors. |
| Appeal dismissed |
.....may be spelt out that, within the meaning of section 2(21) read with section 2(17) and 2(47) of the act, the vehicle in question was not a light motor vehicle--no ground to interfere with impugned award.;special appeal allowed;appeal dismissed - labour & servicesappointment: [shiv kumar sharma, ashok parihar & k.s. rathore, jj] merit list rajasthan secondary education act (42 of 1957), section 28 & rajasthan board of secondary education rules, rule 20 - held, improved marks obtained by candidate after re-appearing in examination can be considered for drawing the merit list of candidate for appointment to post of teacher. circular issued by the director of primary & secondary education ousting such candidate from consideration in merit list is illegal and without jurisdiction. - 3 while concluding that the insurer has failed to prove that the driver was not holding valid driving license.n.p. gupta, j.1. all these four appeals arise from the same award, they are being heard together and are being decided by this common order.2. the only question argued is that the learned tribunal has wrongly decided issue no. 3 while concluding that the insurer has failed to prove that the driver was not holding valid driving license. the learned tribunal has held that the insurer has not any evidence to show that the vehicle in question was a vehicle of category other than 'light motor vehicle' as the driver was holding license for driving the light motor vehicle.3. learned counsel for the appellant was not able to point out to me any material on record from which it may be spelt out that, within the meaning of section 2(21) read with sections 2(17) & 2(47) of the motor vehicles act, the vehicle in question was not a 'light motor vehicle'.4. in that view of the matter. i do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned award.5. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed summarily.6. copy of this order be placed on the record of the other three appeals also.
N.P. Gupta, J.
1. All these four appeals arise from the same award, they are being heard together and are being decided by this common order.
2. The only question argued is that the learned Tribunal has wrongly decided issue No. 3 while concluding that the insurer has failed to prove that the driver was not holding valid driving license. The learned Tribunal has held that the insurer has not any evidence to show that the vehicle in question was a vehicle of category other than 'light motor vehicle' as the driver was holding license for driving the light motor vehicle.
3. learned Counsel for the appellant was not able to point out to me any material on record from which it may be spelt out that, within the meaning of Section 2(21) read with Sections 2(17) & 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the vehicle in question was not a 'light motor vehicle'.
4. In that view of the matter. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned award.
5. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed summarily.
6. Copy of this order be placed on the record of the other three appeals also.