NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Sirmour, at Nahan, dated 17.12.2009 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 63/2007, whereby the complaint was allowed and the Insurance Company was directed to indemnify the complainant to the extent of Rs. 3,22,100 minus excess clause, along with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment is made. In addition to this, opposite party -Company has been directed to pay cost of Rs. 2,500. Parties are being referred to hereinafter as per their status in the complaint.

(2.) FACTS of the case as they emerge from the record are that the complainant who is owning Tractor bearing No. HP -18B -9330, which was got insured by him with the Insurance Company for the period 27.7.2005 to 26.7.2006 and when this tractor as parked at Village Sainiwala on the side of the road, then in the morning of 20th March, 2006, it was revealed that tractor was found missing. Hence, matter was reported to the Insurance Company as well as to the Police and claim was lodged with the Insurance Company for settling the claim but the opposite party -Company instead of settling his claim, repudiated the same on 3.4.2007 and as such deficiency of service has been alleged on the part of opposite party. In this background, present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed for the deficiency of service.

(3.) THIS complaint was resisted by the opposite party -Company who had submitted its version to the effect that the complainant is not the registered owner of the tractor and it was also denied that the vehicle was insured for all purposes and further contention was to the effect that the policy was issued only as a farmers package policy and not for commercial purpose and it was contended that on the receipt of intimation relating to theft of tractor, Shri A.N. Chopra was appointed as Surveyor who had recorded the statement of its owner, driver Shri Rajesh Kumar and Lambardar of the village who had stated that the tractor was used for agricultural purposes as well as for carrying goods. Hence it was contended that since the policy obtained by the complaint was a farmers package policy and the tractor was being driven for commercial purposes, without having any route permit, as such the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated and there is no deficiency of service on their part.