National Consumer Disputes Redressal
G. Siddesh vs The Branch Manager, Icici Lombard ... on 13 October, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 618 OF 2014 (From the order dated 29.08.2013 in Appeal No. 1173 of 2013 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore) With IA/1016/2014 G. Siddesh S/o G. Nagappa Residing at No.23, Anekonda Davanagere, Karnataka Petitioner/Complainant Versus The Branch Manager ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. P.B. Road, Davanagere, Karnataka Respondent/Opp. Party (OP) BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 13th October, 2014 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/Complainant against the order dated 29.08.2013 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 1173/2013 G. Siddesh Vs. The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioners truck KA 17 A 7497 was insured by OP/respondent for a period of one year commencing from 12.6.2011 to 11.6.2012. On 3.6.2012, vehicle met with an accident and vehicle was severely damaged.
Complainant incurred expenditure of Rs.3,23,285/- in repairs and submitted claim, but, OP repudiated the claim on the ground that complainant violated terms and conditions of policy. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP/respondent resisted complaint and submitted that as per registration certificate, vehicle had sitting capacity of 1+4 whereas, at the time of accident vehicle was carrying 1+11 persons and in such circumstances, claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission as barred by 74 days as well as on merits against which, this revision has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that looking to violation of terms and conditions of policy, learned State Commission ought to have allowed compensation on non-standard basis and has committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be admitted.
5. Learned State Commission dismissed appeal as barred by 74 days. Petitioner has nowhere mentioned in the revision petition that State Commission committed error in rejecting application for condonation of delay. Learned State Commission rightly observed that complainant has not produced any documentary evidence in support of his illness and rightly dismissed appeal as barred by limitation. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not show any satisfactory explanation for delay in filing appeal before State Commission and in such circumstances, order passed by learned State Commission dismissing appeal as barred by limitation is in accordance with law.
6. As far merits of the case is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case of overloading of vehicle, claim should have been allowed upto 75%. He has also placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in F.A. No. 166 of 2003 National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Babu & Anr. In the aforesaid judgment, appeal filed by National Insurance Co. was allowed and order of State Commission allowing claim was set aside.
In the aforesaid case, against the capacity of 19 passengers, 35 to 36 passengers were in the vehicle and it was held that repudiation of claim by Insurance Co. was in accordance with law.
In the case in hand against the capacity of 1+4, there were 1+11 passengers in the vehicle which was clear cut violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and in such circumstances, petitioner was not entitled to any claim on non-standard basis and learned State Commission has not committed any error in affirming order of District Forum dismissing complaint.
7. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.
..Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER k