NITIN Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint in which the complainant alleged the deficiency in the service of the opposite party namely the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The complainant alleged that his Maruti van bearing registration No. MTV7718 was insured with the opposite party on 11.4.1989. The complainant paid Rs.1229/- towards premium and the insurance policy was valid from 11.4.89 to 10.4.1990. The insurance policy was for the sum of Rs.80,000/-. On 16,11,1989 Maruti van met with an accident in Yevatmal Dist. and the accident was reported to nearest Police Station at Ladkhed in Yevatmal Dist. The intimation of the accident was given to the Opposite Party and a claim was submitted in November 1989. Thereafter the complainant completed all the requirements as per the queries made by the opposite party upto the end of December, 1989. the complainant alleged that since there is no response from the opposite party, a notice dtd.13.8.90 was issued to the Regional Officer at Pune including the head office at Bombay. The complainant alleged that the aforesaid taxi was being used as taxi out of loan and because of total loss of taxi he suffered very much. The complainant therefore filed the present complainant claiming the amount of policy of Rs.80,000/-, interest, notice charges and Rs.45,000/- towards loss of earning and compensation for suffering and penalty. Thus, the total claim of Rs.2 lakhs has been made by the complainant. In response to the notice sent to the opposite party under Sec.13 of Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party filed its written version denying the complainant's claim. Inter-alia the opposite party alleged that the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose with restricted seating capacity of 3+1 only, and also submitted that since there is an arbitration agreement, the complaint is not maintainable. The contention raised by the opposite party is thatthe matter is pending for adjudication before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Yevatmal and therefore this Commissionhas no jurisdiction. Another contention raised by the Opposite Party is that the complainant was carrying more passengers then the seating capacity of vehicle. Lastly, it is contented that the complainant has exaggerated his claim for compensation.

(2.) We have given our anxious consideration to the allegations made in the complaint and the defence raised by the insurance company.

(3.) The vehicle in question was insured for the sum of Rs.80,000/- and has been totally damaged in the accident is an admitted fact. Coming to the technical objection raised by the opposite party that the complainant has purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose and therefore the claim is not maintainable before this Commission is absolutely irrelevant and incorrect. Since this is the complainant alleging the deficiency in the service of the insurer, the "commercial purpose" is totally irrellevant. The legal bar to take out the consumer complaints out of purview of the Consumer Protection Act on the basis of "commercial purpose" is relevant only in respect of the goods purchased by the parties. So far as the deficiency in the service is concerned, the commercial purpose is totally irrelevant. Another contention raised by the opposite party is that there is arbitration agreement which proides the parties under the insurance policy to refer the dispute to arbitrator and therefore, this complaint is not maintainable is also not correct. The National Commission in number of cases has held that despite the agreed terms for reference to the arbitration between the parties, the consumer can approach the consumer for a for the redressal of his grievance if there is any in the service of an insurer.