State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jagdish Prasad Royal vs Ifco Tokiya Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.& Anr. on 9 February, 2010
Appeal No.1831/2008 Jagdish Prasad Royal,r/o Bada Gaon,Laxmangarh,Sikar. Appellant V. 1.IFCO Tokiya Gen.Insurance Co.Ltd.,34,Nehru Place,New Delhi. 2.Mahindra Insurance Broker Ltd.,Devipura,Sikar. Respondents Before Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member
Mr.Sashi Kumar Pareek-Member Shri Amit Singh Shekhawat,counsel for the appellant Shri P.C.Mishra,counsel for the respondents Date of Judgement: 09.02.2010 BY THE STATE COMMISSION:
This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant against the order dated 22.9.08 passed by the District Forum,Sikar in complaint no.66/08,by which the complaint of the complainant appellant was dismissed.
2. It arises in the following circumstances:
2That the complainant appellant had filed a complaint against the respondents insurance company before the District Forum,Sikar on 27.2.08 interalia stating that his jeep bearing registration no.RJ.23.GA.0936 was got insured with the res.no.1 insurance company for the period 27.9.2006 to 26.9.07 for a sum of Rs.4,13,250/- as goods vehicle bearing policy no.35955221. It was further stated in the complaint that on 22.12.2006 the abovementioned vehicle was damaged in an accident and a report of the incident was lodged with the police station,Ringus,District Sikar bearing FIR no.301/06 on 22.12.06 and in getting the repair of the vehicle a sum of Rs.48032/-
were spent by the complainant appellant and a claim was preferred by the complainant appellant with the office of the respondents insurance company, but that claim was repudiated by the respondents insurance company through letter dated 22.10.07 in the following manner:
"On perusal of the documents,we have observed that:
The subject LGV was being driven by Mr.Tara Chand at the time of accident.
Mr.Tara Chand holds a licence(licence no.RJ.23/DLC/2001/08407) to drive M/CYL WG & LMV only and not the LGV.
In this regard your kind attention is invited to general exception no.3(b) of the policy which states that the company shall not be liable for any accidental loss/damage while the vehicle insured is being driven by any person other than a driver as stated in the drivers clause.
The driver clause is given in the schedule of the policy which defines the driver as any person including 3 insured provided that the person holds an effective driving licence at the time of accident.
You may observe for the above that Mr.Tara Chand was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the LGV and hence the claim falls under exception of the policy."
Thereafter the present complaint was filed.
A reply was filed by the respondents insurance company before the District Forum on 2.5.08 and in the reply the respondents insurance company have taken the same pleas which were taken in the repudation letter dated 22.10.07 and apart from that it was stated that the the surveyor, Shri Om Prakash Saharan appointed by them in his report dated 6.9.2007 had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.28,924/- and thus it was prayed that on point of licence,the claim was rightly repudiated and and complaint be dismissed.
The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order dated 22.9.2008 had dismissed the complaint as stated above,interalia holding that the driver of the vehicle of the complainant appellant Tara Chand was having a licence to drive LMV, but he was not authorised to drive other than transport vehicle and thus the licence in question was not found a valid one
3. Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant .
4. In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the complainant appellant is that since the licence in question was to drive LMV and since the jeep in question should 4 be treated as a Light Transport Vehicle,therefore,repudiation of the claim by the respondents insurance company was not justified and similarly, the findings recorded by the District Forum could not be sustained and atleast the claim should have been treated as sub standard and to that extent the appeal be allowed.
5. On the other hand,the learned counsel for the respondents insurance company has supported the impugned order and further reliance has been placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Meena Aggarwal reported in 2009 ACJ
666.
6.. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. In this case,there is no dispute on the point that the vehicle in question was got insured with the respondents insurance company for the period 27.9.2006 to 26.9.07 for a sum of Rs.4,13,250/- and the same had met with an accident on 22.12.2006 .
8. There is also no dispute on the point that due to the accident the Jeep in question was damaged and the claim of the complainant appellant was repudiated by the respondents insurance company through letter dated 22.10.2007 on the grounds mentioned therein.
9. There is no dispute on the point that the licence which was held by the driver of the complainant appellant Shri Tara Chand was of LMV though the vehicle in question was LGV.
10. There is also no dispute on the point that the surveyor 5 appointed by the appellant insurance company in his report dated 6.9.2007 had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.28924/-.
11. The question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances just narrated above,the repudiation of the claim by the respondents insurance company was justified or not and whether the findings recorded by the District Forum could be sustained or not;
12. It may be stated here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Anappa Irappa & ors reported in 2008 Supreme 378 has held that the driver who had a valid licence to drive a LMV was also authorised to drive a Light Goods Vehicle as well. But since in this case,there is no dispute on the point that no endorsement to drive LGV was made on the licence of Shri Tara Chand though the Jeep itself could not be regarded as a private vehicle, but would be treated as a Light Commercial Vehicle.
13. So far as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd. V.Meena Aggarwal supra is concerned,distinction has to be drawn in the manner that in that case the vehicle which was insured in question was a private vehicle and the same was being used for commercial purposes,but in the present case the vehicle in question was not insured as a private vehicle, but insured as Light Goods Vehicle,therefore,if in the above circumstances, in our considered opinion ,the repudiation of the claim in toto by the respondents insurance company could not be justified and in such matters the claim should have been treated as sub standard by the District Forum.
614. Apart from that the breach of the conditions in the present case does not appear to be so fundamental in nature as to put an end to the whole contract and thus from every point of view, the claim should be treated as sub standard.
15. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Meena Aggarwal, supra on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents insurance company could not be applicable with the facts of the present case because of the simple reason that distinction has to be drawn in the manner that in that case the vehicle which was insured in question was a private vehicle and the same was being used for commercial purposes,but in the present case the vehicle in question was not insured as a private vehicle, but insured as Light Goods Vehicle.
16. For reasons as stated above, the findings recorded by the District Forum by which the complaint was dismissed could not be sustained and simarly,the repudiation of the claim in toto could not be justified and the claim of the complainant appellant is treated as sub standard and this appeal filed by the complainant appellant deserves to be allowed.
On point of compensation
17. Since the surveyor appointed by the respondents insurance company,Shri Om Prakash Saharan in his report dated 6.9.07 had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.28,924/-,therefore,the complainant appellant is entitled to 75% of the above amount that comes to Rs.21693/-, with interest @ 9 % p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made alongwith Rs.3000/- as amount of cost of litigation.
718. The result is that this appeal filed by the complainant appellant is allowed,impugned order dated 22.9.08 passed by the District Forum,Sikar is quashed and set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant appellant is partly allowed in the manner that the complainant appellant is entitled to 75% of Rs.28,924/- that comes to Rs.21693/-, with interest @ 9 % p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made alongwith Rs.3000/- as amount of cost of litigation.
Member Member President A/G