STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN FIRST APPEAL NO. 233 / 2015 Branch/Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Ltd.

Divisional Office 65-A Rajpur Road, Dehradun Through Authorized Signatory Regional Office – Rajpur Road, Dehradun ……Appellant / Opposite Party Versus Sh. Laxman Singh Bagadi S/o Late Sh. Gabbar Singh Baghri R/o Village Kandi, P.O. Hindolakhal, Pathi Chanderbadni, Tehri Garhwal ….…Respondent / Complainant Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia, Learned Counsel for the Appellant None for Respondent Coram: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II Mr. Bhagwat Singh Manral, Member Dated: 21/02/2022

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II):

This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 16.09.2015 passed in complaint case No. 24 of 2014 titled as Sh. Laxman Singh Bagadi vs. Branch/Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd, whereby the learned District Consumer Forum, Tehri Garhwal has allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to pay insured amount Rs. 3,73,495/- alongwith compensation Rs. 500/- for mental agony and Rs.

500/- as costs of litigation.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are as such that the alleged accident occurred on 01.01.2014 at about 2:45 O’clock when the driver Sh. Virender Singh was plying the vehicle No. UK07-TA-0517 of the complainant; a report was lodged which was recorded in general diary of the area of Hindolakhal Police Station, Devprayag. It is alleged that his claim was repudiated on the ground that the vehicle was being plied by someone else, i.e. Sh. Girish Lal, not by the driver Sh. Birender Pal. By filing the claim petition, the claimant has sought the claim to the sum of Rs.

3,73,495/- alongwith compensation and costs of litigation.

3. The opposite party – insurance company has alleged that as per general diary and other documents, Sh. Girish Lal was running the insured vehicle. It is further stated that there was no hill endorsement on the driving license of the driver, hence, the claim was repudiated by the answering opposite party.

4. Hearing both the parties, the impugned judgment has been delivered by granting the claim to the complainant.

5. On having been aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the present appeal has been preferred before the Commission.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, but none responds on behalf of the respondent to place argument before us.

7. There is no dispute regarding the ownership of the vehicle and validity of the insurance policy of the insured vehicle.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company has contended that he is arguing only one legal plea as on the date of incident, the driver Sh. Birender Pal was not authorized to drive the insured vehicle on hill route.

9. We have perused the driving license of Sh. Birender Pal which does not bear any hill endorsement.

10. The Uttarakhand Motor Vehicles Rules, 2011, Section 195 lays down:

“195 - No person shall drive a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle on a hill road unless his licence to drive such public service vehicle or goods vehicle has been endorsed by a registering authority with a permission to drive upon hill roads situated within the jurisdiction of such registering authority or in the case of a public service vehicle hired by tourists, by the registering authority of the State with which reciprocal arrangements on the point have been agreed upon.”

11. Thus, requirement of hill endorsement by the concerned registering authority in Driving Licence of a person is mandatory, which shall be complied with by a driver who is plying the vehicle on the hill routes and a violation of such requirement would fetal the case.

12. In the above cited case law, New India Assurance Company Ltd. (supra), the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, relying a case law of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi “Rajinder Singh Negi vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.;