State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vijaykumar Digambarappa Khanapure vs Manager, Bajaj Allianze General ... on 31 August, 2015
1 F.A.No.:181/2014
Date of filing :28.3.2014
Date of order :31.08.2015
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :181 OF 2014
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 158 OF 2011
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :LATUR.
Vijaykumar Digambarappa Khanapure,
R/o Padma Naga, Behind Ushakiran Theatre,
Tq. & Dist.Latur. 413 512. ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Manager,
Bajaj Allianzs General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
G.E.Plaza, Air port Road,
Yerwada, Pune.
2. Manager,
Bajaj Allianzs General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
32/34, Nawandar Arcade,
Opp.Gate No.2 of Market Yard,
Kava Road, Latur. 413 512. ...RESPONDENTS.
CORAM : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Smt.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Mr.A.K.Jawalkar for appellant, Adv.Mr.Sandeep Gaikwad for respondents.
O R A L JUDGMENT (Delivered on 31st August 2015) Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.2.2014 passed by Dist.Consumer Forum, Latur dismissing consumer complaint No.158/2011.
(For the sake of brevity appellant Vijaykumar Khanapure is herein after referred as the complainant and respondent as opponent insurance company) 2 F.A.No.:181/2014
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-
Complainant Vijaykumar Khanapure is the owner of Indica car bearing registration No.MH-24C-6951. It was registered with the opponent insurance company obtaining comprehensive insurance policy bearing No.OG-10-20-10-2010-180100000333.During the subsistence of the policy, on 24.7.2010 the car met with an accident and was damaged, when it was carried by one Manoj Upadhyay who is friend of the complainant. Accidental case was registered by police against truck driver who dashed the car. After the accident information was given to the opponent insurance company and as per instructions of the opponent insurance company the car was taken to Shree Enterprises, Latur for repairs who inspected the car and estimated damages at Rs.4,14,336/-. Thereafter the complainant submitted the claim with opponent insurance company but opponent insurance company without assessment of damages through its surveyor straightway repudiated the claim and by letter dated 26.5.2011 informed the complainant contending inter alia that complainant has committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy by giving it on hire or reward basis etc. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent, complainant has filed consumer complaint claiming damages at Rs.4,49,336/- with interest etc.
3. Opponent insurance company by its written version resisted the complaint contending inter alia that it has rightly repudiated the claim as complainant has committed fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy using the car on hire or reward basis carrying passengers at the time of accident. It has denied all other adverse averments made by the complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint.
4. On hearing both side and considering evidence on record District Consumer Forum held that opponent insurance company has 3 F.A.No.:181/2014 rightly repudiated the claim as complainant has committed fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy. In keeping with these findings Dist.Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint.
5. Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order, complainant came to this Commission in appeal.
6. We heard learned counsel for both side and perused the written notes of argument submitted by them. We have also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint, written version and repudiation letter, FIR and other documents.
7. Almost all the facts except the contention of opponent insurance company that the complainant has committed fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy by using insured car on hire or reward basis, are not disputed. Therefore the crux in this matter is as to whether the complainant has committed fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy or not?
8. Undisputedly at the time of accident, the car was being used by Shri.Manoj Upadhyay carrying his family members from Latur to Selu-Manwat. However, according to the complainant said Manoj Upadhyaya is his friend and therefore the car was given to him without charging any rent. But opponent insurance company has falsely alleged that the car was being used on hire or reward basis. Mr.Jawalkar learned counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant never used the car on hire or reward basis. But as his friend Shri.Manoj was in urgent need of car, it was given to him for carrying his family members from Latur to Selu-Manwat etc.
9. Per contra Mr.Gaikwad learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointing out from the copy of statement of Manoj Upadhyay which is recorded by police submitted that the car was 4 F.A.No.:181/2014 given to Manoj on rent and accordingly he has stated before the police. Not only this but Mr.Harikishor Upadhyay who gave information to the police immediately after the accident, also informed to the police that the car was being taken on rent. Accordingly it is mentioned in the FIR. On perusal of copy of FIR we find much force in the submission of Mr.Gaikwad learned counsel for the opponent insurance company. The copy of FIR also fortify the copy of statement of Manoj Upadhyay which reflects that there were 7-8 passengers travelling by the vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore we have no hesitation to accept the argument advanced by Shri.Gaikwad learned counsel for the opponent insurance company and held that the complainant has committed fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy.
10. For the foregoing reasons it is obvious that opponent insurance company has rightly repudiated the complainant's claim. Accordingly District Consumer Forum has rightly hold and dismissed the complaint. We find no glaring error at infirmity in the impugned judgment and order. Hence no interference is warranted.
11. In the result, appeal is being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. Hence the following order.
O R D E R 1. Appeal is dismissed. 2. No order as to cost.
3. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/- Uma S.Bora, S.M.Shembole, Member Presiding Judicial Member Mane