AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Although, as per service report, service of notice on the Respondent is not complete but Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant.
At the outset, it is pointed out by Counsel appearing for the Respondent/Complainant that travelling and allied expenses as directed to be paid in terms of order dated 14.07.2016 have yet not been paid to the Complainant. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Insurance Company states that the same shall be remitted directly to the Complainant within two weeks.
The main grievance of the Petitioner/Insurance is that the State Commission has failed to take into consideration the scope and effect of Section 6 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which stipulates that no person shall hold more than one driving license at a particular time. According to the Learned Counsel, when the copy of the driving license filed with the Claim Petitioner was found to be fake, the Complainant produced another license, which, on enquiry was found to be genuine.
We are of the view that the issue raised by learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company stands concluded by the decision of this Commission dated 16.10.2014, passed in Revision Petition No.4852 of 2013. In the said decision, which, in our view, is on all fours on the facts of the present case, it has been held that since at the relevant time, the driver had only one valid license, the factum of his having another invalid license is of no consequence. In light of the said decision, the submission is rejected.
At this stage, it is also argued by learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that while directing the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.5,22,500/-, the stated IDV of the vehicle in question, less Rs.2,500/-, on account of excess clause, the State Commission has erred in not taking into consideration, the salvage value of the vehicle.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant, on the other hand submits that since the vehicle (Tractor) had got buried under heavy snow, it was not possible to retrieve the same and, therefore, its salvage could not be determined. Having regard to the stated circumstance, we are of the view that the only reasonable method which could be applied to determine the salvage value of the vehicle would be as per the stipulation in the policy regarding depreciation.
Consequently, while affirming the finding recorded by the State Commission on merits, we partly allow the Revision Petition, with a direction that the Insurance Company shall be entitled to deduct the salvage value of the vehicle, on the basis of the depreciation chart, stated to be incorporated in the policy in question.
The Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms, with no order as to costs.