ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAJ KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, insurer, was the opposite party before the District Forum. Complaint of the respondent-complainant was regarding insurance claim arising out of accident of his vehicle which the respondent had repudiated. District Forum allowed the complaint relying on the two Judges Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., II (1996) CPJ 28 (SC)=1996 CCJ 743. Against the order of the District Forum, petitioner went in appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the appeal with costs and affirmed the order of the District Forum. Still aggrieved, petitioner has challenged the order of the State Commission before us.

(2.) The vehicle, being a truck owned by the complainant was insured with the petitioner for Rs. 2.00 lakhs. It was a goods carrying vehicle. During the validity of the insurance policy the truck met with an accident. It was a total loss. At the time of the accident truck was found carrying 13 persons when the policy limited the travel in the truck to 5 persons. District Forum on the basis of material on record came to the conclusion that the travelling of six more persons in the truck had no effect on the accident and the accident was not caused on account of truck carrying excess persons. District Forum, therefore, directed payment of Rs. 2.00 lakhs as damages, Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs payable to the complainant by the petitioner. It was contended by the petitioner before the District Forum as well as before the State Commission and now before us that finding that 13 persons were travelling in the truck was in violation of the terms of the policy and the petitioner was entitled to repudiate the claim. Mr. Vishnu Mehra, learned Counsel for the petitioner had referred to the terms of insurance policy which limited the use of the vehicle for carriage of goods within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was contended that policy did not cover use of carying passengers in the vehicle except employees (other than the driver) not exceeding six in number coming under the purview of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. We may set out the relevant conditions of the policy as to limitation relating to the use of the vehicle as under :

(3.) Mr. Mehra in all fairness did not dispute the finding that travelling of 13 persons in the vehicle did not contribute to the accident but his submission was based on law as required under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection for exercise of our jurisdiction.