State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shanta Kumar vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company ... on 31 July, 2013
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. First Appeal No: 70/2013. Date of Presentation: 25.03.2013. Date of Decision: 31.07.2013. ..... Shanta Kumar, S/o Shri Kewal Ram, R/o Village Hillor, P.O. Sahali, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. Appellant. Versus IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., Ist Floor, Savitri Niwas, Khalini, Shimla, H.P. Respondent. ....... Coram Honble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member. Whether approved for reporting?[1] For the Appellant: Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Virender Sharma, Advocate. ........... O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chamba, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent, seeking a direction to it (the respondent) to pay insurance money on account of the damage caused to the insured vehicle, has been dismissed.
2. Appellant owned a tractor, which was insured with the respondent, for the period from 15.06.2010 to 14.06.2011. On 01.12.2010, when the policy was still in force, tractor met with an accident and was damaged. Report was lodged with the police by one of the occupants of the tractor. Intimation of the accident was given to the respondent also. Claim was repudiated by the respondent on the ground that there were seven persons on board the tractor, though as per registration certificate, only the driver could be present on the tractor and, thus, there was breach of condition of policy.
3. Appellant filed a complaint seeking direction to the respondent to pay insurance money. Respondent contested the complaint and denied its liability to indemnify the appellant on the ground that seven persons were on board the tractor at the time, when the damage was caused and this was in breach of the condition of the policy that more persons than the authorized number would not board the tractor.
4. Learned District Forum has accepted the respondents plea and dismissed the complaint. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. Report was lodged with the police by one Ram Chand. Copy of the report is Annexure C-3. As per this report, Ram Chand was one of the seven occupants of the tractor, when it met with an accident. As per registration certificate, copy Annexure C-1, the seating capacity of the tractor was only one.
6. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the F.I.R. cannot be used as evidence to accept the respondents plea, particularly when the respondent did not examine the lodger of the F.I.R., nor did it file his affidavit. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. Proceedings before Consumer Fora are of summary nature and the documents, the authenticity of which is not under challenge, can be taken into consideration, without formal proof. The lodger of the F.I.R., in this case, namely Ram Chand, was one of the persons on board the tractor, when it met with an accident, and, therefore, the inference should be that he is known to the appellant.
Therefore, in case the appellant felt that the contents of the F.I.R. were not correct, he could have very easily examined said Ram Chand as a witness, or filed his affidavit to controvert the version given in the F.I.R.
7. Learned counsel representing the appellant further submits that this is a case of breach of one of the conditions of the policy and, therefore, the claim ought to have been treated as non-standard and 75% of the insured sum paid to the appellant. In support of the plea, he places reliance upon a latest precedent of the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 3793 of 2007, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Malti Bhikabhai Bhoya, decided on 16th April, 2013. In that case, the vehicle was registered for carriage of employees of the owner, but some persons, other than the employees, were being carried, when the accident resulting in damage, occurred. The number of the persons was not in excess of the authorized capacity. It was because of these facts that the claim was ordered to be paid on non-standard basis. Honble National Commission noticed three of its earlier judgments, i.e. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Suresh Babu & Anr., 1 (2007) CPJ 23 (NC), Naresh Kumar vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., IV (2012) CPJ 493 (NC) and Santosh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2008) CPJ 171 (NC), wherein the claims had been held to be rightly repudiated on account of carrying of more passengers, than the authorized limit, in goods carrying vehicles but did not disagree with the same. Also the Honble National Commission in a recent decision has upheld the repudiation of claim, where a large number of persons in excess of the authorized limit were travelling by the insured vehicle, at the time of accident. Citation is Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Ashwani Kumar, 1 (2013) CPJ 21B (NC) (CN).
8. In view of the above stated position, appeal is dismissed.
9. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member July 31, 2013.
DC Dhiman) [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?