V ARAVANDI Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant in O.P. No. 190/97 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruchirapalli, is the appellant herein. His case was as follows: (a) He purchased a vehicle from one Rajendran. The said Rajendran had given a proposal for insurance coverage on 16.2.1996 and in that proposal he had stated that the vehicle was an open body carrier. He paid the premium only for the open body carrier. The Insurance Company also collected the premium on the basis that the vehicle was an open body carrier. After the complainant purchased the vehicle, the insurance was transferred in his favour for the period 14.6.1996 to 15.2.1997. There was an accident on 15.2.1997. The complainant made a claim. The opposite party repudiated the claim by letter dated 13.8.1997 but volunteered to settle the claim at 75% of the value of the policy of the insurance as non -standard claim without any legal basis. Hence the complaint came to be filed.

(2.) THE opposite party resisted the claim. The conversion of the vehicle into a tanker was suppressed to the opposite party at the time of taking the policy and in such circumstances the opposite party proposed to settle the claim on non -standard basis at 75%. The original owner in his proposal form had stated that the vehicle was an open body carrier. Premium was also collected only on that basis. No additional premium was paid by the subsequent purchaser, the complainant. There was thus clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite partys liability being a contractual one and not a statutory liability and if there was any dispute with regard to quantum of compensation the matter should go before the Arbitrator. The Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction.

(3.) WHEN the original owner had given the proposal on the basis that it was an open body carrier and the insurance was also transferred in the name of the complainant on its purchase and if the complainant wanted to have it converted into a tanker, he ought to have informed the Insurance Company and if the Insurance Company had made a demand for further premium, he should have paid that. The fact remains that he did not bring it to the notice of the Insurance Company, opposite party and after the accident he had made a claim on the basis that it was a tanker. We do not find any merit in the case of the appellant/complainant. The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint.