ORDER: Oral: Justice Surinder Sarup (Retd.), President:

1. This may be read in continuation of our order of the previous date i.e. 11.3.2003.

2. The learned Counsel for the appellant states that he has not been above to lay which would have the effect of supporting his arguments referred to in that order, in the face of the decision of this very Commission on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondent and referred to in that order dated 11.3.2003. in other words, relying on that earlier decision of this very Commission, we affirm the finding in the impugned order that when the vehicle was insured by the appellant been after the expiry of certificate of fitness, the claim for indemnification could not be repudiated on that ground.

3. It has today been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the report of the Surveyor clearly goes to show that the vehicle involved in the accident in the present cue was a 1993 Model and, therefore, the total loss was correctly assessed in the report of the Surveyor at Rs. 2,5000/-, which is the amount which should have been awarded, instead of Rs. 3,50,000/-. However, the admitted facts of the case are that the vehicle was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document