BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ANR BRANCH OFFICE; BRANCH MANAGER,STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR, RAJALDESAR BRANCH, TEHSIL RATANGARH DISTRICT Vs. CHURU RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition, by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. and its Branch Manager, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in the Complaint (for short "the Insurance Company"), is to the order dated 23.1.2014 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No.1, Jaipur (for short "the State Commission"), in Appeal No.102/2008. By the impugned order, the State Commission has over-turned the order dated 11.10.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Churu, Rajasthan (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No.50/2007. By the said order, the District Forum had dismissed the Complaint filed by six owners of the tractor insured with the Insurance Company, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in repudiating their claim for indemnification of the loss suffered by them on account of the tractor being set on fire by the Maoists. The District Forum had come to the conclusion that having regard to the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by some tractor owners, against the setting on fire of the tractors, which were being used for digging up a canal at some location in Bihar, which included the tractor of the Complainants, the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim on the ground that the tractor was being used for commercial purpose at the time of accident, which was clearly in violation of the policy conditions pertaining to "limitations as to use". Thus, allowing the Complaint, the State Commission has directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainants a sum of Rs. 2,00,507/-, towards the loss of tractor assessed by the Surveyor; interest on the said amount at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the Complaint till date of payment and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and cost of litigation. Hence, the present Revision Petition.

(2.) Despite service of notice, the Complainants remain unrepresented. Accordingly, we have heard learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has strenuously urged that while observing that the Insurance Company has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show that the tractor was in fact being used for commercial purpose, the State Commission has committed a material irregularity in ignoring the contents of aforesaid FIR. According to the Learned Counsel, the FIR clearly indicated that all the tractors burnt by the Maoists were engaged in the digging of a canal in the State of Bihar. It is also urged that in his report, dated 10.06.2006, under the heading "General Remarks", the Surveyor has observed that the vehicle was working on hire in Bihar.

(3.) Having carefully perused the pleadings and the documents on record, including the letter dated 4.12.2006, issued by the Insurance Company repudiating the claim, we are of the view that the Revision Petition is bereft of any merit. It is true that as per the averments in the Complaint, the subject tractor got burnt somewhere in Bihar, but the question falling for consideration is as to whether the FIR and the afore-noted Surveyor's Report is sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the tractor, belonging to the Complainants, had also been hired by an agency for being used for the aforesaid purpose at the time of incident, as stated in the letter of repudiation. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the name of the Complainants does not figure therein. Apart from the said FIR, which significantly does not contain the name of the Complainant, there is not a shred of any other evidence, which may show that the tractor was given on hire by the Complainants and, thus the policy conditions, pertaining to limitation as to use, stood violated. The mere fact that the tractor was found parked away from the residence of the Complainants in Churu, in our view, is not sufficient enough to come to the conclusion that the tractor was given on hire by the Complainants, as observed by the Surveyor. If the Surveyor or the Insurance Company had suspected that the tractor was being used on hire for digging up canal in Bihar, we are unable to fathom any reason as to what prevented them from obtaining necessary information about the engagement of the subject tractor in the project undertaken by the concerned Government Authorities.