ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. ASHWANI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 22.05.2007 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short the 'State Commission ') in appeal No. 1570 of 2004, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (opposite party in the complaint before the District Forum) has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21 -B of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act '). The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by the present petitioner -insurance company against the order dated 15.10.2003, by which order the said District Forum had partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 51,202/ - to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 28.04.2001 till payment, besides a cost of Rs. 500/ -. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the District Forum, hence this petition.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint are in a narrow compass. The complainant being owner of the truck bearing registration No. HR -26 -A -6407 got the said truck insured from the insurance company for the period from 27.02.2001 to 26.02.2002. Unfortunately, on 28.02.2001, the said truck met with an accident and the surveyor appointed by the insurance company assessed the damage to the truck at Rs. 51,202/ - although, according to the complainant he had spent a sum of Rs. 90,000/ - on the repairs of the truck. The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company, which the latter repudiated on the ground that the insured had committed violation of the specific conditions of the insurance policy inasmuch as at the relevant time of the accident, the truck was carrying 54 passengers. The complaint filed was also resisted on the same ground. The fora below held that the repudiation of the insurance claim being on unjustified grounds tantamounts to deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company to settle the claim and therefore, allowed the complaint to the above extent. We have heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate learned counsel representing the petitioner -insurance company and Mr. S.M. Suri, learned counsel for the respondent -complainant at length and have given our thoughtful consideration to their submissions. Learned counsel representing the insurance company would assail the concurrent findings and orders passed by the fora below primarily on the ground that the same are not based on the correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence and material produced on record least on examination of the terms and conditions of the policy and the legal position settled by the Apex court and this Commission in a number of cases. The basis of this submission is that as per the admitted position, the motor vehicle in question i.e. the truck insured is a goods transport vehicle registered as such and having a permit to transport the goods only and by using the said truck, for the purpose of ferrying the passengers numbering as many as 54, the insured had committed gross violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also that of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In this regard, our attention has been invited to the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as also the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In this connection, reference has been made to the 'General Exceptions ' appearing in the policy, which inter -alia states that:

(3.) IT is submitted by Mr. Abhishek Kumar on behalf of the Insurance Company that the insured vehicle comes under the category of a transport vehicle as defined under section - 2(47) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which means 'public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. It is further submitted that the Ld. State Commission and District Forum has not considered that a goods carriage vehicle is only meant for carrying goods, for which the requisite permit was granted by the prescribed authority under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. It is submitted that the respondent has committed the flagrant violation of the terms of the insurance policy and the breach of Section -88 (11) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and rules. It was next contended that the fora below have failed to consider that the insured vehicle in question was meant for transportation of goods only for which the insured had obtained a permit from the prescribed authority under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and by putting the insured vehicle to the use of carrying the passengers, the insured has committed flagrant violation of not only the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act but also the terms of the insurance policy and therefore, disentitled himself for the indemnification of any loss/damage suffered by him on account of damage to the vehicle in the above circumstances.