Justice S.K. Kulshrestha, President (Oral):

1. Both these appeals are directed against the order dated 22.1.2010 of the District Forum Vidisha in complaint case No. 68/2008 wherby the District Forum has awarded a sum of र 1,40,000 plus र 10,000 as compensation and on failure to pay this amount within one month from the date of the order to pay 9% interest.

2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. It is not disputed that truck bearing registration No. M.P. 09 KC - 6933 was insured on payment of premium र 13,743. It is alleged that the truck while proceeding towards Ganjbasoda caught fire and was burnt with the goods kept in the truck. On Surveyor being appointed, he gave the report and assessed the loss in the sum of र 2,45,690 on repair basis. But because the value of the truck was र 5 lacs and the loss occasioned was 49%, therefore, the Surveyor assessed the loss on cash loss on repair basis in the sum of र 1,39,998 i.e. र 1,40,000 for which the complainant also agreed. Therefore, the election of the second alternative i.e., र 1,40,000 towards repairs of the truck was finalized but, the Insurance Company repudiated its liability on the ground that the truck was carrying hazardous goods for which no endorsement had been obtained from the R.T.O. It is on this ground that the Insurance Company has also filed an appeal No. 536/2010 for setting aside the order passed by the District Forum.

3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that since under Rule 129 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, it is necessary to comply with the provisions of law in respect of dangerous or hazardous goods, the goods carried by the transporter were in violation of the said rule. Dangerous or hazardous goods will be those which the dangerous or hazardous nature to human life and carrying one small packet of crackers cannot be said to be dangerous or hazardous to human life. Learned Counsel then next contended that under Rule 9(3) of the said Rules endorsement on the licence by the Licensing Authority, to the effect that he is authorized to dive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to humane life, is mandatory. The contention presupposes that the truck was loaded with hazardous goods. As pointed out earlier it is to be demonstrated that hazardous goods carried in the truck were dangerous or hazardous to human life. We have been shown the photographs of the goods and we find that apart from stray crackers, there is nothing to suggest that goods were dangerous to public. Under these circumstances, in our opinion, we are of the firm view that the goods carried by the transporter were not hazardous or dangerous to public and, therefore, the repudiation of claim by the Insurance Company was wholly illegal.

5. The District Forum has allowed र 1,40,000 but now on reflection that the Surveyor on the basis of repair basis has assessed the loss at र 2,45,690 and the insured having elected for र 1,40,000 towards repairs of the vehicle, cannot now change his stance and seek for enhancement of compensation. र 1,40,000 awarded is reasonable and in consonance with the report of the Surveyor. The insured has been awarded a sum of र 10,000 towards compensation. However, in view of the fact that it was carrying crackers though in small quantity, he did not deserve any compensation over and above that was provided by the Insurance Company. Accordingly sum of 

52; 10,000 awarded to the complainant as damages is set aside. However, the condition of 9% interest on the amount in case of non-deposit of the amount within one month, is maintained. 6. Accordingly, Appeal No. 581/2010 is dismissed and Appeal No. 536/2010 is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to the costs. Appeal 581/2010 dismissed. Appeal 536/2010 partly allowed.