NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. GURBACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Insurance Company against the judgment and order of the District Forum, Ludhiana dated 22.6.2006 by which the complaint of the complainant was allowed in the following terms :

(2.) Brief facts are that a truck bearing Registration No. PB-10-AR-9867 was insured with the appellant -Insurance Company. The insurance was got done on 20.4.2001 and was valid till 19.4.2002. Unfortunately on 7.2.2002, when the vehicle was being driven by the helper of the complainant, it met with an accident while coming back from Beas. It was alleged in the complaint that there were certain relatives and friends in the truck as they had gone in the truck to attend Radha Soami Satsang in Beas. At around 7.30 p.m. on that day, two trucks collided and one of them swayed towards the complainant s vehicle and hit it and as a result of which the vehicle of the complainant got badly damaged. Even the driver of the vehicle got injuries. The other occupants of the truck also got minor injuries. F.I.R. No. 17 dated 7.2.2002 was got lodged at Police Station Subhanpur, District Kapurthala by Kulwant Singh, who was driving one of the two trucks, which collided with each other. The claim was lodged with the Insurance Company, but the same was repudiated on 17.6.2002. It was mentioned in the repudiation letter that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose for carrying passengers by charging fare from them and had, therefore, committed a breach of the condition of the policy. This led the complainant to file a complaint before the District Forum, which has been allowed as aforesaid.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that it is not disputed rather is admitted, that at the time of the accident there were some passengers in the truck, who also got minor injuries. Since, it was a goods vehicle it could not carry passengers. The insurance policy was only qua the vehicle, which could be used for carrying of goods within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act and also did not cover "use for carrying passengers in the vehicle except employees (other than driver) not exceeding six in number". Learned Counsel submitted that it was the case of the complainant that there was only one helper of the complainant in the vehicle and the others were passengers. Since there was a breach of condition of the policy, the claim was rightly repudiated. Learned Counsel for the appellant cited a judgment of the National Commission in Hemant Kumar Chhabra v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004 1 CPJ 22(NC). In that case, the Insurance Company had repudiated the claim as the vehicle was carrying 6-7 passengers in breach of the policy conditions whereas vehicle had been registered for private use. The National Commission held that since there was a breach of condition of the policy, the repudiation was well based.