RAJIV RATHOD Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum where his complaint was allowed in part, which was further modified by the order of the State Commission on an appeal being filed by the respondent/opposite party.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had a Tata Sumo Car which was insured with the respondent for Rs. 3,50,000/- for the period 21.7.1998 to 20.7.1999. This car was stolen/looted on 12.2.1999 by some miscreants who allegedly had taken the car with driver for a test run with a view to purchase the same on being satisfied about the performance of the car. Matter was reported to the opposite party who appointed a Surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs. 2.5 lakhs, yet this amount was not paid and the claim repudiated on the ground that the Sumo car was registered as a private car but actually being used as a taxi, thus violating the terms of the policy. On a complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant before the District Forum, it allowed this complaint to the extent that it awarded Rs. 2.7 lakhs along with interest @ 12% p.a. and costs of Rs. 1,000/- on the ground that opposite party has failed to prove his case; cost of the car was put at Rs. 3.00 lakhs and after providing for 10% depreciation, payable value was put at Rs. 2.70 lakhs. On an appeal filed by the respondent/opposite party the State Commission reversed the finding of the District Forum about the car being used as a taxi and directed the opposite party to settle this claim treating this as a case of 'non-standard claim' and directed payment of 75% of Rs. 2.5 lakhs, the loss estimated by the Surveyor appointed by the respondent - hence this petition by the petitioner-complainant.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that there was no ground with the State Commission to believe that the car was being used as a taxi. This was a case of total loss, hence full value of the car should have been awarded to him. Since this car was not carrying fare-paying passenger, the State Commission erred in settling the claim at 75% of the value. The order of the State Commission needs to be set aside and the revision petition be allowed with costs. These contentions were vehemently opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondent.