ACHAMBHIT PRASAD GUPTA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 7.4.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (in short, 'the State Commission') in Complt. No.13/2014 Achambhit Prasad Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & 3 Ors. by which, complaint was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/appellant is a retired employee of South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. After retirement, the complainant started transport business for livelihood of his family and for self-employment, investing his hard earned money received from South Eastern Coal Field Ltd as his retiral benefits. The complainant purchased one Hiwa Tata Truck from Shivam Motors (Dealers of Tata Motors) on 20.12013 at the cost of Rs.24,85,000/-. The said vehicle was insured with O.P.No.1 to 3/Respondent No. 1 to 3 and premium of Rs.49,138/- was paid. The said vehicle was parked in the garage; driver Shri Chandra Shekhar sitting in the driving seat started the engine and also lifted the load body. The driver did not notice that high tension power line was passing through above the said vehicle; as soon as the load body came into contact with high tension wire, the vehicle got electrocuted and got burnt completely. Intimation in this regard was sent by the complainant to the Branch office, Ambikapur of the Insurance Company and also to O.P.No.4. The O.P.No.1 to 3 appointed Shri A.P. Singh, Surveyor to conduct preliminary survey. Shri A.P. Singh, Surveyor conducted preliminary survey. Thereafter the complainant submitted claim along with all relevant documents before the O.P. No.1 to 3. On being receipts of the documents, the O.P.No.1 to 3 appointed Shri R.B. Singh as Surveyor, who also inspected the vehicle and assessed the loss and submitted his report. Shri R.B. Singh, Surveyor after adjusting salvage value of Rs.3,00,000/- and excess clause of Rs.1,500 as per the terms and conditions of the policy, assessed the actual loss as Rs.20,65,500/- which is payable by O.P.No.1 to 3 to the complainant, but the O.P.No.1 to 3 did not pay the said amount to the complainant and repudiated the claim of the complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission.

(3.) OP No. 1 to 3 resisted complaint and submitted that the vehicle in question was not registered with the concerned R.T.O., which is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The vehicle in question was being used for commercial purpose, therefore, fitness and permit was required, but no fitness and permit was obtained by the complainant. The complainant violated terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as mandatory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988. The vehicle in question was being used in the public place without obtaining permit and fitness, which is fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the O.P.No.1 to 3 has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complainant is not a consumer. He purchased three Hiwa trucks which were engaged with a contractor for transporting mine's material. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. None appeared for OP No. 4.