NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. HARDYAL ROHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 11.11.2003 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, in Appeal No.174/2002, whereby the State Commission confirmed the order passed by the District Forum, which has directed the Insurance Company, Petitioner herein, to pay a sum of Rs.2,73,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Complainant has come in revision before us.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that, undisputedly the Respondent/Complainant, Mr. Hardayal Rohta, had insured his truck with the Petitioner, M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to Insurance Company) for the period between 22nd May, 1998 and 21st May, 1999 for a sum of Rs.5.5 lakhs. The truck met with an accident on 16.10.1998 at 10.30 pm and the vehicle suffered extensive damage in the accident. On the basis of the information received from the Complainant, the Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor who had assessed the loss caused to the vehicle on total loss basis at Rs.2,73,500/-. Instead of paying the said amount, the Insurance Company had offered to pay him Rs. 1,79,750/- on non-standard basis, and the complainant has given his consent to receive the said amount on 4.10.1999. Thereafter, the Insurance Company did not pay the said amount for nearly ten months. Hence, the Complainant did not accept the said amount and filed a complaint before the Simla District Forum, on 2.8.2000. By its judgment and order dated 17.6.2002 passed in Complaint No.913/2000, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay the sum of Rs.2,73,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Against that order the Insurance Company preferred appeal No. 174 of 2002 before the State Commission, Himachal Pradesh. By Judgment and order dated 11.11.2003, the State Commission dismissed the appeal. Hence, the Insurance Company has come in revision before us.

(3.) AS against this, the learned Counsel for the Complainant submitted that as per the terms of the policy six persons can be carried in a goods vehicle. Carrying two or more persons would not be such violation of the terms of the policy so as to reduce the compensation by one fourth of its market value. Findings: With regard to the first contention that in the goods vehicle, namely, the truck, gratuitous passengers ought not to have been permitted, in our view, this contention is rightly rejected by the District Forum and by the State Commission on the ground that the Insurance Company failed to establish that the driver of the truck was carrying gratuitous passengers beyond the permissible limit and that was the cause of the accident. It also arrived at the conclusion that there was no material on record to establish that the Respondent was responsible for the alleged violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy wilfully or knowingly. Further, the State Commission has recorded specifically that this condition was not pressed in appeal. In this view of the matter, there is no substance and this requires to be rejected.