G. AMBAJEE Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2006 passed in CD 1037/2005 by the District Forum I, Hyderabad dismissing the owners claim for damages of the motor vehicle, the appellant/complainant filed this appeal questioning the legality and propriety of the order.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased Mahindra Maxx vehicle by availing finance advanced by OP.2 and on the advice of the financier, the said vehicle was insured with respondent/OP 1. The said vehicle was used for private and domestic purposes. The complainants relative by name Pandurang wanted to go on pilgrimage along with the family so he spared the vehicle and sent his driver V. Ganapathirao to go on journey. On the way to Pandarpur, the vehicle met with an accident near Solapur, Pune road on 06.06.2003 as a result of one person died and others sustained injuries including the driver. The police registered a crime against its driver. On coming to know of the accident, the complainant informed to the insurance company/OP.1 and it appointed a surveyor to assess the loss cussed to the vehicle. After inspection of the vehicle by the surveyor the vehicle was sent to workshop of OP.2 for repairs and that sum of Rs.2,35,127/- was incurred for repairing it. A claim was preferred by the complainant but it was repudiated on 5.5.2004. So he approached the Insurance Ombudsman who also fail to consider his claim. There is no violation of the policy conditions to repudiate the claim. Non payment of the insurance claim is attributed as deficiency in service.

(3.) OP. 1 Insurance company had resisted the claim . Its version is that though the vehicle was registered as private vehicle but the policy was taken as commercial passenger vehicle. As the vehicle was used for commercial purpose, the driver should possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the commercial vehicle. At the time of accident the vehicle was overloaded exceeding its capacity. It is carrying passengers on hire or reward. It was plied as taxi without permit. As it was used in contravention of the terms of the policy, it is not permissible to pay the insurance claim, so it was repudiated. Further, the complainant is not a consumer and that the complainant did not produce the documents before the surveyor. As per the FIR details the vehicle was used for carrying passengers on hire or reward. Further the driver though drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner which resulted causing the death of one person. The driver had obtained licence to drive LMV vehicles only.