MANIKANT Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in this case, one Manikant, has filed the present revision petition being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No 1091 of 2005 wherein the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was the Respondent.

(2.) The facts of the case according to the Petitioner who was the original complainant before the District Forum are that he had insured his farm tractor and trolley with the Respondent/Insurance Company for the period from 20.12.1997 to 19.12.1998 for a sum of Rs. 2,85,000. The insured vehicle i.e. tractor along with trolley met with an accident on 7.12.1998 causing extensive damage. Petitioner immediately informed the Respondent/ Insurance Company on telephone about the incident who in turn appointed a Surveyor to assess the damage. Petitioner thereafter frequented the office of the Respondent wherein he was assured that his claim would be settled. After about 11/2 years, Petitioner was informed that his file was missing. Petitioner again submitted all the papers relating to his case and in response to a letter dated 24.6.2003 from the Respondent, Petitioner provided all records to the Surveyor. However, vide letter dated 4.12.2003, Respondent informed the Petitioner that his claim was not being accepted because he had violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Being aggrieved by the repudiation of his genuine claim, Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum requesting that Respondent be directed to pay the Petitioner Rs. 44,500 towards loss/damage along with interest @ 24% per annum and litigation costs.

(3.) Respondent/Insurance Company on the other hand while admitting that the insured vehicle met with an accident, stated that the claim was rightly repudiated because it was proved by the Report of the Surveyor appointed by the Respondent/Insurance Company after a thorough investigation that there was clear violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy since the insured vehicle was being used not for agricultural purposes for which it was insured but to carry/transport building materials for a Government construction which is a commercial activity. Further, the driver of the vehicle was driving this transport vehicle in violation of his licence by which he could only drive "non-transport" vehicles. Since, the conditions of insurance policy as well as the driving licence were breached by the Petitioner, his claim was rightly repudiated.