State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager, National Insurance ... vs Chandrashekhar Singh & Another on 26 May, 2008
JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RANCHI JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RANCHI FA no. 571 of 2007 Against judgement dated 3.1.2007, passed by Palamu District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Daltonganj, in Consumer Complaint no. 57 of 2006. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited - Appellant .vs. Chandrashekhar Singh & another - Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate. Present: Mr. Justice Gurusharan Sharma- President And Mrs. Kalyani Kar Roy- Member
Judgment Justice Sharma: This appeal is directed against judgement dated 3.1.2007, passed by Palamu District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Daltonganj, in Consumer Complaint no. 57 of 2006, whereby the appellant-Insurance Company has been directed to pay insurance amount of Rs.44,834.00, as the amount spent by the complainants in repair of the Jeep (JH-07A-4574) and Rs.5,000.00 as compensation on account of physical and mental harassment.
2. According to the office report, limitation for filing appeal from the date of impugned judgement expired on 2.2.2007, whereas it was filed on 22.2.2007. In the petition for condonation of delay, filed under Rule 8(4) of the State Rules, it has been stated that true copy of the impugned judgement was issued on 11.1.2007 and then after completing procedural formalities in the office and obtaining legal opinion, the appeal could be filed with ten days delay. No rejoinder to this petition has been filed by the respondents and as such the statements made therein are uncontroverted. We are satisfied that delay has properly been explained. Hence, ten days delay in filing the appeal, from the date on which copy of impugned judgement was supplied to the appellant, is condoned.
3. The Jeep (JH-07A-4574) was registered as private vehicle and was duly insured with the National Insurance Company Limited for the period from 16.11.2004 to 15.11.2005. However, on 14.6.2005 it met with an accident near Borsidag more (Chandwa) and was damaged. The Jeep belonged to one Swayambar Singh, who died on 3.9.2005, leaving behind his widow, Saraswati Devi and son, Chandrashekhar Singh. At the time of accident the Jeep was being driven by Chandrashekhar Singh himself.
4. On 10.4.2006 the Insurance Company repudiated the insurance claim on the ground that the Jeep, which was registered and insured as private vehicle was being plied on hire, which was not covered under the policy. As per investigation report, it was found being used for carrying passengers on hire at the time of accident. It was a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the private car package policy. Vinod Kumar Singh, who was going to be married stated before the surveyor that the Jeep was hired by him for carrying barat party. Police investigation also confirmed the said vehicle being used for hire.
5. The District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Insurer to pay the amount to the complainants as mentioned in paragraph 1 above. The District Forum observed that violation of one of the conditions of the policy was not affecting the cause of accident and therefore Insurer should have allowed the claim of the complainants. In our view, the aforesaid finding is perverse and bad in law. If condition of policy is proved to have been violated, it would surely entitle the insurer to repudiate the insurance claim.
6. Now let us enter into merit of the case. According to the complainants, the owners son, Chandrashekhar Singh was driving the Jeep and was going to attend marriage of his cousin brother with his friends and on the way accident took place. It was not correct to say that the Jeep was carrying barat party on hire.
7. An FIR was lodged at Chandwa Police Station for the said accident. Final report submitted by the Police was marked Ext.6.
8. The Insurance Company, on getting information of accident of the Jeep appointed a Surveyor, who submitted his report. Vinod Kumar Singh, who was going to be married on 14.6.2005 stated before the Surveyor that the Jeep was hired for Rs.2,500.00 to carry barat party. His statement was brought on record and was marked Ext. A. Vinod Kumar Singh, according to the complainants was non else but cousin brother of Chandrashekhar Singh, but his evidence on affidavit was not produced by the complainants to contradict the Surveyors report based of the previous statement of said Vinod Kumar Singh. The other persons, namely, Prakash Ram and Raghunath Bhuiyan, who were traveling on the Jeep claimed themselves to be invitees of Vinod Kumar Singh as well as friends of Chandrashekhar Singh, but they may not be aware of the fact as to whether the Jeep was going for the said marriage ceremony on hire or reward or Chandrashekhar Singh was going to attend the marriage on his private Jeep at his own cost.
In our view, failure on the part of complainants, to produce Vinod Kumar Singh, to deny his statement (Ext.A) before the Surveyor and to state that he had not hired the Jeep was fatal to the complaint.
9. We dont appreciate the observation of the District Forum that Surveyor was the man of Insurer and was earning bread through them, therefore, it was not safe to reply upon his report. Certainly the Surveyors report can be challenged by the claimant by producing evidence to the contrary, but it cant be thrown out simply on the basis that since the Surveyor was appointed by the Insurer, his report was not reliable. In absence of denial in Court by Vinod Kumar Singh of his statement (Ext.A) made before Surveyor that he had hired the Jeep, there was no occasion for the District Forum to disbelieve such statement as well as the Surveyors Report. The surveyors report in absence of any other evidence to the contrary is an important piece of evidence and it cant be brushed aside simply on the ground that Surveyor was insurers appointee and earns his bread through the Insurer.
10. In our opinion, ratio of the decisions cited in paragraph 11 of the judgement under appeal were not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, which were not similar to those cases and, therefore, the insurer had rightly repudiated the insurance claim in the present case. Here admittedly the complainants had taken Private Car Package Policy and Jeep was insured for personal use of the insurer. It could not have been used for commercial purpose, i.e. for carrying passengers for hire or reward. The Jeep was not registered with Registering Authority as Passenger Carrying Commercial Vehicle. Hence, its use on hire rendered the policy void abinitio and denial of insurer to indemnify the insured was justified.
11. We have, therefore, no option but to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, we set it aside and allow the appeal. Consequently, Consumer Complaint no. 57 of 2006 stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
The 26th May, 2008.
Ranchi.
Member President