GULZAR SINGH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant has come up in appeal to challenge the order dated 10th November, 1994 passed by learned District Forum, Kamal, whereby his complaint for claiming compensation against the National Insurance Company on account of damage caused to the three-wheeler and injuries suffered by the passengers in an accident, has been dismissed.

(2.) The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that his vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company with a valid insurance policy upto 25th May, 1994; whereas the accident took place on 15th June, 1993. According to him, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the claim made by him of Rs.8000/- alongwith Rs.2000/- for damages and another Rs.2000/- for mental agony suffered by him, due to repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company. In the reply filed by the Insurance Company, it was pleaded that according to the insurance policy and according to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, three- wheeler could ply only within the municipal limits whereas the complainant was plying the three-wheeler in a village Garhi Birbal i. e. , outside the municipal limits. It is further pleaded that at the time of accident the three-wheeler was over-loaded i. e. , carrying 15 to 20 passengers which number was much more than the permissible limits of four only, hence he was not entitled to any compensation. The learned District Forum after considering the evidence produced by the parties and the F. I. R. lodged with the police, dismissed the complaint, as it came to the conclusion that the Insurance Company had rightly rejected the complaint due to the over-loading of the three-wheeler carrying more than 15 passengers at the time of accident.

(3.) In the appeal before us, the learned Counsel for the appellant has contended, that the loss suffered by the complainant had been assessed at Rs.8000/- by the Surveyor of the Insurance Company, hence, on that basis, the Insurance Company should not have repudiated the claim outrightly. Secondly, the learned Counsel has contended that the complainant was only carrying 3 passengers and not 15 at the time of accident. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that the complaint has been rightly dismissed by the learned District Forum, as the fact that the complaint had been carrying 15 to 20 passengers stands corroborated from the contents of the F. I. R. lodged with the police. Therefore, in the face of that position, which is contrary to the terms of the Insurance Company and against the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act the complainant was not entitled to claim any compensation. The mere fact that the Surveyor had assessed the loss as Rs.8000/- does not confer a legal right on the complainant to claim the compensation nor does it cast a legal duty or obligation on the Insurance Company to concede the claim. Consequently' we do not find any cogent ground to set aside the order passed by the learned District Forum. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.