SANTHOSH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -CHALLENGE in this revision is to the order dated 26. 7. 2007 of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore allowing appeal against the order dated 26. 10. 2006 of a District Forum and dismissing the complaint. District Forum had accepted the complaint partly with direction to the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 1,62,929 with interest @ 6% p. a. from the date of filing of complaint as also Rs. 6,000 towards mental agony, to the petitioner.

(2.) VEHICLE bearing registration No. KA-39-2414 owned by the petitioner/complainant was insured with the respondent and during the currency of policy the vehicle met with an accident in the midnight on 27. 11. 2004. On being intimated of the accident and the damage to the insured vehicle, the respondent/opposite party-Insurance Co. appointed a Surveyor. However, by the letter dated 21. 9. 2005, the Insurance Co. repudiated the claim for disbursement of the amount spent on repairs on the ground that vehicle was being used for carrying passengers at the time of accident in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and the permit. Complaint filed by the petitioner was resisted on similar ground by the respondent-Insurance Company.

(3.) RELYING on the decision in B. V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , II (1996) CPJ 28 (SC)=i (1997) ACC 123 (SC)=1996 ACJ 1178, the submission advanced by Mr. Mallikarjun S. Mylar for the petitioner is that the terms of policy, should be read to carry out the main purpose of policy and the presence of 50 passengers in the vehicle had not contributed to occurring of the accident and petitioner is thus entitled to the amount as assessed by the Surveyor. Copy of the cover note is at page 20. Reading thereof would show that it covers use of the vehicle only under a permit within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Indisputably, permit granted to the petitioner was for carrying goods and not the passengers. It is not in dispute that 50 passengers were being carried in the vehicle at the time of accident. Carrying of that large number of passengers in vehicle was in gross violation of the conditions of permit. In B. V. Nagaraju's case (supra) , the number of persons carried was 9 when upto 6 were permissible. In the facts of the case, this decision is not of any assistance to the petitioner. Considering the ratio of the decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Challa Bharathamma and Ors. , V (2004) SLT 825=iii (2004) ACC 292 (SC)= (2004) 8 SCC 517, the State Commission had rightly set aside the order of the District Forum. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision is, therefore, dismissed. R. P. dismissed.