OM PARKASH Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner//complainant Om Prakash is the owner of a Tata Spacio vehicle bearing registration No.HR-31-A/5300 which he got insured with the respondent/OP-insurance company, vide Cover Note No.141701/31/05/05133 dated 17.10.2005 for the period from 18.10.2005 to 17.10.2006. The said vehicle met with an accident on 4.12.2005 at 8 p.m. near Shahpur village, while going to Bawal from Village Nangal Teju, to which the complainant belongs. At that time, the vehicle was being driven by Kuldeep Singh driver. The case of the complainant is that the accident happened because a 'Neel Gai' (Blue Bull) came on the road across the vehicle. According to the complainant, the vehicle was totally damaged in the accident and a DDR No.13 dated 8.12.2005 was registered at Police Station, Bawal. The driver, Kuldeep Singh also sustained injuries in the aforesaid accident and he was admitted in Civil Hospital, Bawal on 5.12.2005, where he was treated by a Medical Officer, Dr. J.S. Mehra, who prepared the Medico Legal Report (MLR) in English language and the same was signed by the driver. The incident was also reported to the insurance company, which appointed a surveyor, M.K. Gupta to assess damage to the vehicle.

(2.) The District Forum after taking into account the averment of the parties, passed their order on 19.1.2007 by majority opinion. Two Members of the District Forum concluded that the OP was required to pay a sum of Rs.1,73,415/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 10% per annum. The dissenting third Member of the District Forum, however, stated that since the vehicle was being used as taxi on hire, the complaint deserved to be dismissed. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum given by majority opinion, the OP insurance company challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission and the same was allowed by the State Commission, by which, the order of the District Forum was set aside and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed on the ground that the vehicle was insured as private vehicle, but it was being used as taxi on hire and that the complainant did not inform the insurance company immediately after the accident and hence, did breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Being aggrieved against the said order, the complainant/petitioner is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

(3.) During hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant stated that there was no valid reason for the insurance company to appoint three surveyors in the case, one after the other. The third surveyor had given his findings on the basis of the version recorded by the treating doctor on the MLR. In fact, the said version was not proved, because the vehicle met with an accident when a 'Neel Gai' came across the vehicle on the road. The learned counsel further stated that even if, it was concluded that the vehicle was being used as a taxi, the complainant was required to be paid 75% of the claim on non-standard basis, in accordance with the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2010 2 CPJ 9 (SC).