NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. S SUBHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MRS. M. Shreesha, Incharge President (Oral)-Aggrieved by the order in C. C. No. 101/2006 on the file of District Forum, Kadapa, opposite party preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the first complainant purchased one Mahindra Commander Jeep bearing No. AP 04 U 9585 and insured with opposite party and paid premium and obtained policy bearing No. 611200/31/05/01/00632 on 26. 8. 2005 valid till 25. 8. 2006. The first complainant submitted that on 24. 3. 2006 the vehicle met with an accident near cotton mill on Kadapa-Pulivendula road within the limits of C. K. Dinne Police Station and the vehicle was badly damaged and one person died and others sustained injuries. A case was registered under Cr. No. 36/2006 at C. K. Dinne Police Station and informed to the opposite party. The first complainant spent Rs. 1,03,900 towards repairs and indebted to an extent of Rs. 1,00,000 to moneylenders to release the vehicle from the repairing shop. The first complainant submitted that the vehicle was purchased from 2nd complainant under hire purchase agreement and paid some loan amounts to second complainant and the second complainant had no rival claim. The first complainant submitted that the opposite party requested him to produce driving licence of the driver and he accordingly submitted all the records for settlement of the claim and the opposite party appointed a Surveyor to assess the damages of the vehicle. The first complainant submitted that he was under the impression that the opposite party would settle the matter and kept the vehicle at repair shop for 50 days due to financial problems but the opposite party sent a letter on 30. 8. 2006 repudiating the claim on the ground of carrying more persons than permitted. The first complainant submitted that his vehicle was a commercial vehicle carrying passengers and the driver had valid driving licence and the accident had not occurred on account of extra persons travelling in the vehicle and hence the repudiation is unjustified and submitted that he sustained loss of Rs. 20,000 of rent @ Rs. 500 per day. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,63,900 apart from Rs. 10,000 towards conveyance and other expenses for getting the vehicle repaired together with interest at 24% p. a. from the date of accident till the date of realization, Rs. 20,000 towards financial loss for 50 days in keeping the vehicle in the repair shop, Rs. 20,000 for mental agony and Rs. 2,000 towards costs.

(3.) OPPOSITE party filed counter admitting the ownership, policy and the accident on 24. 3. 2006 and also admitted the expenditure incurred for repairing the vehicle to an extent of Rs. 1,63,900. Opposite party submitted that on 30. 8. 2006 they informed the 1st complainant that the vehicle was insured as a luxury tourist cab LMV and permission was given for six persons only including the driver and as per the FIR in Cr. No. 36/2006 of C. K. Dinne Police Station about 10 persons including the driver were travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident against the permitting seating capacity and hence in violation of the rules of M. V. Act and insurance policy conditions and hence the claim was rightly repudiated and the bills filed by the complainant did not contain APGST and CST numbers and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.