LAKHMI CHAND Vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 29.02.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as "State Commission") in First Appeal No. 1396 of 2011, vide which appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat dated 18.08.2011 was accepted and consumer complaint in question, dismissed. The District Forum, Sonepat vide their order dated 18.8.2011 in consumer complaint No. 517 of 2010 had allowed the said complaint; the original complainant has therefore, filed the present revision petition before this Commission. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner is the owner of the Tata vehicle ACE -E -3 bearing Number HR -67 -7492 and the same was insured with the respondent/opposite party vide policy No. 15019923334104992 with effect from 31.07.2009 to 30.07.2010. The said vehicle met with an accident on 11.02.2010 against the offending vehicle bearing No. UP -75 -J 9880 and an FIR No. 66/10 dated 11.02.2010 under Section 279/337/338/304A/427 IPC was registered with the police. The insurance company was also informed on telephone after the accident. The petitioner got the vehicle repaired from an authorized repair shop and a bill of Rs. 1,64,033/ - was paid. However, the respondent refused to make payment of the repair bill stating vide its letters dated 07.07.2010 and 26.07.2010 that the loss did not fall within the scope and purview of the insurance policy. The insurance company appointed a surveyor to assess the loss and as per the survey report, the loss was assessed as Rs. 90,000/ -. Further, as per the report of the investigator, it was revealed that five passengers were travelling in the goods -carrying vehicle at the time of accident, in addition to the driver, whereas seating capacity of the vehicle as per the registration certificate was 1+1 only. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question with the District Forum, Sonepat requesting for payment of Rs. 1,64,033/ - as spent on repair charges plus Rs. 50,000/ - for mental agony/harassment and legal fees etc. The District Forum, after taking into account the evidence of the parties, allowed the complaint vide its order dated 18.08.2011 and directed to settle the claim on 'non -standard -basis' upto 75% of the amount of loss after taking into consideration the amount of Rs. 1,64,033/ - and the said settled amount was directed to be paid to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum and Rs. 2,000/ - was allowed for mental agony/harassment etc. However, the State Commission vide impugned order reversed the order passed by the District Forum in appeal, saying that there was violation of the policy in question, because five passengers were travelling in the goods -carrying vehicle at the time of accident in addition to the driver, whereas seating capacity of the vehicle as per registration certificate was 1+1. The learned State Commission relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd., Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & Anr., : 2011 CTJ 11 (SC) (CP). It is stated in the said judgment that the terms and conditions of contract of insurance have to be strictly construed and no exception can be made on the ground of equity. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.

(2.) AT the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that offending vehicle was directly responsible for the accident in question. The petitioner was entitled to get the claim as allowed by the District Forum because they had spent a sum of Rs. 1,64,033/ - for the repair of the vehicle. The learned counsel further stated that the order passed by the District Forum was based upon the case law as cited in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pravinbhai D. Prajapati, : IV (NC) 315 (NC) and the case B.V. Nagaraju Vs. Oriental Insurance Company as reported in : AIR 1996 (SC) 2054. On the other hand, the facts of the case relied upon by the State Commission i.e. Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd., Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & Anr. (Supra), are not applicable to the present case.