ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. CHANNAVEERAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of a single order and a common argument was advanced by the Advocates, and hence, we are disposing of these appeals by this single order.1. Appeal No.563/1998 is by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. , which was respondent No.1 before the District Forum, Dharwad in Complaint No.456/94, which has been asked by an order dated 22.6.1998 to pay a sum of Rs.69,000/- jointly and severally to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the said amount will carry interest at 18% p. a. till payment, whereas, Appeal No.580/98 by the complainant against the same order for awarding interest at 21% p. a. on the amount awarded and for awarding compensation for the inconvenience caused to the complainant. The necessary facts, for the purpose of disposal of these appeals are these-The complainant was the owner of a vehicle bearing Regn. No. KA.27/1425, a Goods Truck, which was insured with the respondents for the period from 7.12.1992 to 6.12.1993 paying a premium of Rs.6,660/-. That was a comprehensive policy. The said vehicle in question met with an accident on 21.11.1993 at about 1.30 a. m. on P. B. Road within the jurisdiction of Kumarpattam Police Station, Dharwad District. The said accident was reported to the said police station which was registered in Crime No.87/93. Due to the said accident, the said vehicle suffered heavy damage. Hence, the complainant submitted a claim form to respondent No.1 on 21.12.1993 furnishing the details of the accident, driving licence particulars and R. C. particulars. The estimation of the repairs and the cost of the spare parts spent for the repair was also submitted to the respondent. On receiving the intimation of the accident, the Insurance Company had appointed a Surveyor for the spot survey of the vehicle and also appointed another Surveyor for the detailed report of the survey to ascertain the estimation of the damage. The complainant, however, with the permission of the Insurance Company got repaired the vehicle. After getting it repaired, he produced all the particulars including the bills for purchasing of the spare parts and labour charges were furnished to the Insurance Company. To his surprise, the complainant received a letter on 29.4.1994 from the respondent stating that his claim has been repudiated on the ground that the driver at the time of the accident was not authorised to drive a transport vehicle and the said vehicle was carrying the passengers which was opposed to the policy conditions. According to the complainant he had not violated any terms and conditions of the policy and the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident was holding a valid and effective driving licence and without any reasons the Insurance Company had repudiated his claim. According to the complainant, he had spent a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards repair of the vehicle. However, he was prepared to accept the damages mentioned by the Surveyor as per the assessment made by him. Since his claim was repudiated he has moved the District Forum with the said complaint.

(2.) On receipt of the notice from the District Forum, the respondent submitted their written objections admitting the existence of the insurance policy, ownership of the vehicle, and the accident as such. However, it has justified the repudiation made by it. According to the Insurance Company during the course of investigation of the claim, it came to light that the driver of the vehicle, at the time of the accident was not having an effective and valid driving licence. It also came to know that the said vehicle was carrying passengers and on these grounds it had repudiated the claim and the said fact of repudiation had been intimated to the complainant. It also disputed the quantum of amount spent for the repair.

(3.) In support of the case, the complainant filed his affidavit and produced documents P1 to P7, whereas the opponent filed the affidavit and placed reliance on Exs. D1 to D4. The District Forum after considering the materials placed by the parties and hearing the arguments of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties came to the conclusion that the complainant has proved that he was entitled for the relief claimed in his complaint.