The requirement for a driver to possess a license to carry hazardous goods under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 149(2)(a) is dependent on the contents being transported at the time of the accident.

ORDER

V.K. Jain, (P.M) - The complainant/petitioner owned a tanker bearing No. RJ 23 GA 1681, which he had got insured with the respondent company. The tanker met with an accident on 03.12.2010. No oil was being carried in the tanker when it met with an accident. The claim lodged by the petitioner/complainant was rejected by the insurance company, primarily on the ground that the driver of the tanker did not possess licence to drive a vehicle carrying hazardous goods. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company primarily on the same ground on which the claim had been rejected. It was further stated in the reply that Shri Prakash I. Trivedi, spot surveyor appointed by the insurance company, on receiving information about the accident of the vehicle, had surveyed the vehicle on 04.12.2010 and submitted his report on 20.12.2010. Thereafter, the claim was evaluated by Mr. Raj Kumar Piti, a Licensed Surveyor appointed by the insurance company. He assessed loss to the complainant at Rs. 2,51,703.36 and after deducting the policy excess and salvage charges, the net amount was assessed by him at Rs. 2,40,203.36. Thereafter, a re-inspection survey of the vehicle was carried by Mr. Narendra Kumar Srivastav, who submitted his report on 07.2.2011, reporting that the driver did not carry licence, authorising him to drive a vehicle carrying hazardous goods and therefore, the claim was repudiated by the insurance company.

2. The District Forum vide its order dated 21.11.2012, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not possess licence authorising him to drive a vehicle carrying hazardous goods. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/complainant approached the concerned State commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 27.5.2014, the State Commission held that since the vehicle was empty at the time it met with an accident, the driver was not required to possess a licence, permitting him to drive a vehicle carrying hazardous goods. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the respondent company was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,40,203/- as per the report of the surveyor to the complainant, along with interest on that amount @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complainant. The insurance company was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and other expenses to the complainant. The complainant however, is dissatisfied with the quantum of the compensation awarded to him and is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

3. Since the insured has not challenged the order passed by the State Commission, the said order has become final as far as the insurer is concerned and consequently, repudiation of the claim cannot be upheld. The only question which arises for consideration in this petition is as to what amount the petitioner/complainant is entitled from the insurance company. As noted earlier, the surveyor appointed by the insurance company assessed the loss to the complainant at Rs. 2,51,703.36 and after deducting policy excess and salvage value arrived at the net loss of Rs. 2,40,203.36. The State Commission has already directed payment of the aforesaid amount to the complainant, in addition to the compensation and cost of litigation quantified at Rs. 25,000/-. Though, the complainant had claimed a sum of Rs. 9,55,000/-, he failed to assail the report of the surveyor before the District Forum. It is settled legal proposition that the report of the surveyor, appointed by the insurance company, who inspects the vehicle and evaluate the loss to the insured, should ordinarily be accepted unless, it is shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable or untenable in law. The complaint contains no ground, assailing the assessment of loss made by the surveyor. In the absence of challenge to the report of the surveyor, the complainant was not enti