SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. JAMSHED KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 09.04.2013, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 905/2012, "Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Jamshed Khan & Anr.", vide which while dismissing appeal, the order dated 12.06.2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alwar, in consumer case No. 1146/2011, allowing the consumer complaint in question, was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent no. 1, Jamshed Khan got his vehicle, truck no. RJ 02 GA 4192 insured with the petitioner/OP vide policy no. 10004/31/11/029678 for the period from 11.03.2011 to 10.03.2012 on comprehensive basis. The said truck was travelling from Kolkata to Alwar on 27.05.2011, when the front tyre of the said truck suddenly burst, due to which there was sparking in the diesel tank and the truck caught fire and got completely burnt. An intimation was given to the Insurance Company which appointed a surveyor to carry out the spot survey. The complainant then brought the truck to Alwar with the help of crane by spending a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. An FIR was registered at Police Station Sirsi Ganj, Firozabad regarding this incident as per FIR No. 14 dated 28.05.2011. It has been stated in the complaint that the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company found the truck completely burnt. A claim was lodged with the Insurance Company for reimbursement of claim amount of Rs. 14,20,000/- with interest and further compensation etc. However, the claim was repudiated by the OP on the ground that the vehicle was overloaded in violation of the policy condition, due to which the alleged incident happened. It was also stated that the forged Lodged Challan has been produced by the claimant. The loss assessed as per the surveyor report is Rs. 9 lakh. The OP No. 2 Bank alleged that on 1.05.2012, the loan amount due towards the said vehicle was Rs. 12,21,186.17ps. and requested for refund of the loan amount. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum on 19.12.2011 and the said Commission vide their order passed on 12.06.2012, allowed the complaint and directed that the Insurance Company should pay the loan amount of Rs. 12,21,186.17ps. with any interest etc. The balance amount and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- should be paid to the complainant for mental harassment and litigation expenses. It was observed by the District Forum that no specific evidence had been produced by the OP Insurance Company in support of their version that at the time of accident, the said vehicle was overloaded or any fake Load Challan was produced. An appeal filed against this order before the State Commission was dismissed by the State Commission on 09.04.2013. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been made.

(3.) At the time of hearing before us, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds taken in the revision petition and stated that the Insurance Policy was a contract between the insured and the insurer, and hence the terms and conditions of the said contract have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. He pointed out that as per the terms and conditions in case of over-loading etc., the Insurance Company was not bound to pay for the claim and hence, the lower courts had taken an erroneous view of the facts and circumstances on record. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents stated that the District Forum had rightly observed that there was no specific evidence in support of the version that the vehicle was over-loaded at the time of accident or any fake Load Challan has been produced.