State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs M/S. Inland Carriers,(Bombay) on 10 December, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA
STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA
CIRCUIT BENCH
AT NAGPUR
5 TH FLOOR,
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING NO. 1
CIVIL LINES,
NAGPUR-440 001
First Appeal
No. A/07/370
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 13/11/2006 in Case
No. cc/95/77 of. District Forum, Amravati)
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Through its Regional Manager, Office at
Dr. Ambedkar Bhavan,
M.E.C.L. Complex, Seminary Hills,
Nagpur-440 006..
..........Appellant(s)
Versus
M/s. Inland Carriers,(Bombay)
Reg. Office: Takhatmal Estate,
Amravati, Through its Partner,
Shri Rahul Lalbhai Mehta,
Amravati. ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MR. B.A. Shaikh, Judicial PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM MEMBER
PRESENT:
Adv. Shri S.M. Paldhikar
......for the Appellant
Adv. Shri Khandewale
......for the Respondent
ORDER
(Delivered on 10/12/2013) PER SHRI, N. ARUMUGAM ,HONBLE MEMBER.
1. This is an appeal filed by original O.P against directing the O.P. to pay Rs. 2 lac towards insurance with 6% interest from the date of filing complaint i.e. on 20/02/1995 and Rs. 1000/- towards the cost of proceeding.
The facts of the case in brief are as under :-
2. The complainant insured his truck bearing RTO registration No. MTV 1192 with Ops for the period 29/08/1993 to 28/08/1994. On 06/09/1993 the about truck met with an accident on Mumbai-Agra National Highway within the jurisdiction of Kasara Police Station, Distt. Thane. The complainant filed the claim case paper claiming the insurance with O.P. The opponent party after scrutiny rejected the claim stating that at the time of accident there were 7 persons travelling in the truck violating policy condition. Being aggrieved by the rejection the complainant filed consumer complaint before District Consumer Forum, Amravati claiming the insurance amount of 2,25,000/- and 1,00,000/- towards compensation with 24% interest. The O.P. resisted the complaint by submitting written submission stating that the complainant violated the policy condition by carrying passengers on the truck and submitted to dismiss the complaint. After hearing of both the parties and perusal of the case papers, the District Consumer Forum, Amravati allowed the complaint partly and directed to pay as mentioned above.
3. Being dissatisfied by this order the original O.P. preferred this appeal. This case was finally heard on 14/10/2013.
4. Adv.
Shri S.M. Paldhikar for the appellant argued that the vehicle in question is goods carrying vehicle in which 7 passengers are travelling at the time of accident out of this, 3 passengers were sitting at the top of the cabin were died in the said accident. Respondent committed breach of the policy condition Limitation as to use by carrying passengers in the vehicle. He further argued that the Forum below without considering the legal position allowed the complaint stating that carrying passengers in the vehicle was not contributed to the occurrence of the accident. The Forum below relied on the ratio laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Nagaraju Vs. Oriental Insurance Company but the ratio of the above case is not applied in proper sense. He finally prayed that the District Consumer Forum wrongly allowed the complaint partly which is not legal and same should be set aside.
5. Adv.
Mr. Khandewale appeared for the respondent and argued that the accident of the truck occurred due to the dashing with the another truck coming from opposite side but not due to the carrying passengers in the truck. The District Consumer Forum rightly relied on the ratio laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Nagaraju Vs. Oriental Insurance Company and the District Consumer Forum rightly appreciated the facts and allowed the complaint partly. He finally prayed that the District Consumer Forum rightly allowed the complaint partly which needs no interference.
6. After hearing of both the parties and perusal of the case papers we observed that the accident took place due to the complainants truck dashed with the another vehicle coming from opposite side. The appellant did not submit the panchaname and FIR Copy and the appellant also not submitted the surveyors assessment report. Further it is very crystal clear that the accident took place due to the complainants vehicle dashing with another vehicle coming from opposite direction and not due to carrying passengers in the truck. The Forum below rightly applied the Honble Supreme Court Judgment of B.V. Nagaraju Vs. Oriental Insurance Company. We are of the strong opinion that the Forum rightly appreciated these facts and allowed the complaint partly which needs no interference, We therefore pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Appeal is dismissed.
2. There is no order as to cost.
3. Parties be informed accordingly.
Dated:- 10/12/2013.
[HON'ABLE MR.
B.A. Shaikh, Judicial] PRESIDING MEMBER [ HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER [ HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM] MEMBER ay