NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. USHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6th April, 2010 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Vijayawada (hereafter, 'the State Commission'). By this order, the State Commission set aside the order of the Guntur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Guntur (hereafter, 'the District Forum'). The District Forum had dismissed the complaint.

(2.) The facts are that the complainant was the owner of a minibus which was insured with the respondent Insurance Company (opposite party before the District Forum) for a sum of Rs.3.5 lakh for the period 1.7.2004 to 31.6.2005. The vehicle met with an accident in the night of 31.5.2005 resulting in the death of 7 persons on the spot and injuries to about 17 persons as well as severe damage to the vehicle itself. A charge sheet was filed after necessary investigation. It would appear from the documents placed on record before the Fora below that the mini bus was carrying passengers of a marriage party. The driver of the mini bus drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and was unable to control the vehicle. As a result, the bus dashed against a stationary truck and thereafter another lorry coming on the road from the opposite direction. According to the charge sheet, it was the driver of the mini bus who was at fault. The Surveyor appointed to examine the claim of indemnification of the loss under the insurance policy, assessed the loss at Rs. 1,25,000 but pointed out that this was subject to admissibility of the claim under the terms and conditions of the policy. The Insurance Company (petitioner before us) repudiated the claim on the ground that there was a clear breach of the policy condition inasmuch as there were 25 persons traveling in the mini bus at the time of the accident as against the authorised strength of 13 persons. The District Forum agreed with the contention of the opposite party/Insurance Company that this breach of condition was material and as such the claim was not admissible at all. However, the State Commission held, on the strength of the Apex Court judgment in B. V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Officer, Hassan, 1996 4 SCC 647, that the violation in the terms of the policy, viz., overloading was minor and directed the Insurance Company to pay to the complainant Rs. 1.25 lakh (being the loss assessed by the Surveyor) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till realisation. Aggrieved by this order, the Insurance Company has filed this revision petition.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.