State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Amit Raj on 7 August, 2015
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 07.08.2015 First Appeal No. 327/2015 (Arising out of the order dated 16.05.2015 passed in complaint case No. 126/2014 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central), Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal: Kashmere Gate, Delhi) In the matter of: National Insurance Company Ltd. having its Regional Office No. 1, Jeevan Bharti Building 124, Connaught Circus New Delhi Appellant Versus Amit Raj R/o 4661, SF Shore Kothi Paharganj Delhi-110055 Respondent CORAM N P KAUSHIK - Member (Judicial) 1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes N P KAUSHIK - MEMBER (JUDICIAL) ORDER
Heard the Counsel for the Appellant Sh. Kapil Chawla on admission.
Appellant has impugned the orders dt. 16.05.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Vide impugned orders the Ld. District Forum passed the following directions in favour of the complainant and against the appellant/OP:
Pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 3,15,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs Fifteen Thousand) alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 16.4.2014 till payment.
Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for pain and agony suffered by him.
Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
In brief, the vehicle bearing no. DL 1YB 6347 TATA Indigo Car was stolen on 03.03.2013. The vehicle admittedly stood insured for the period from 16.03.2012 to 15.03.2013. An FIR in this behalf was lodged with the Police Station. Upon a claim filed by the complainant, the appellant/OP repudiated the same on the grounds: 'fitness is not valid/available on the date of theft". Complainant challenged the repudiation. OP took the sole plea that the complainant had no right to drive the vehicle without the fitness certificate.
Ld. District Forum dismissed the plea taken by the appellant herein observing that in case of theft of the vehicle, the conditions of the policy were not germane. Ld. District Forum placed reliance on the following case law.
"In the case of Jitendra Kumar V/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. (2003) 6 SCC 420. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
The question then is: can the Insurance Company repudiate a claim made by the owner of the vehicle which is duly insured with the Company, solely on the ground that the driver of the vehicle who had nothing to do with the accident did not hold a valid licence? The answer to this question, in our opinion, should be in the negative. Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on which reliance was placed by the State Commission, in our opinion, does not come to the aid of the Insurance Company in repudiating a claim where the driver of the vehicle had not contributed in any manner to the accident.
In National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Swaran Singh's & Others (2004) 3 SCC 297. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
On facts, it is found that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with the driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence.
In United India Insurance Company V/s Surjit Singh Asai reported as III (1999) CPJ 79 NC. It was held as under:
It is nobody's case that the bridge collapsed because of excess weight carried by the bus. The cause of the accident is not attributable to excess passengers carried by the bus. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the Insurance Company was not right in repudiating the claim of the insured merely because the bus was carrying excess passengers when the cause of the accident was totally unrelated to carrying of excess passengers. For example, if the bus was struck by lightning and destroyed, could the Insurance Company refuse to pay on the ground of over-loading. Surely not, the Insurance Company could not refuse to pay on the ground of over-loading when it did not have any connection at all with collapsing of the bridge.
In B.V.Nagaraju V/s M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. II (1996) CPJ 18 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
The National Commission went for the strict construction of the exclusion clause. The reasoning that the extra passengers being carried in the goods vehicle could not have contributed, in any manner, to the occurring of the accident, was barely noticed and rejected sans any plausible account; even when the claim confining the damage to the vehicle only was limited in nature. We, thus, are of the view that in accord with the Skandia's case, the aforesaid exclusion term of the insurance policy must be read down so as to serve the main purpose of the policy that is indemnify the damage caused to the vehicle, which we hereby do.
In B.M.RajashekarAiah V/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The National Commission held as under:-
In our view, the impugned order passed by the State Commission is on the face of it erroneous and is contrary to the decisions rendered by this Commission as well as by the Apex Court. Instead of referring to various other judgments, we straightaway refer to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in B.V.Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. I (1997) ACC123 (SC) II, wherein after referring to earlier decision in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kokilaben Chandravadan I (1987) ACC 413 (SC) : 1987 ACJ 411 SC, the Court held thus: The National Commission went for the strict construction of the exclusion clause. The reasoning that the extra passengers being carried in the goods vehicle could not have contributed in any manner, to the occurring of the accident, was barely noticed and rejected sans any plausible account, even when the claim confirming the damage to the vehicle only was limited in nature. We, thus, are of the view that in accord with the Skandia's case, the aforesaid exclusion term of the insurance policy must be read down so as to serve the main purpose of the policy, that is, to indemnify the damage caused to the vehicle, which we hereby do."
Ld. Counsel for the appellant has not placed before this Commission any case law overruling the authorities relied upon by the District Forum. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case of admission. Appeal is hence dismissed in limini.
Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Record.
FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.
(N P KAUSHIK) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
(f)