State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Oriental Insurance Com. Ltd. vs Sh. Nikka Ram on 17 July, 2006
H H.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA-9 Appeal No. 30 of 2005. Order announced on 17.7.2006. _________________________________________________________ Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Mythe Estate, Kaithu, Shimla. ..Appellant. Versus Sh. Nikka Ram son of Sh. Bariya, Resident of Village Panyaru, P.O.Shorshan, Tehsil Karsog, Distt. Mandi (H.P). .Respondent. Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.),President. Honble Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Member. Honble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member. Whether approved for reporting ? For the appellant. Mr.Pritam Singh, Advocate. vice Mr.Ashwani K.Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent. Mr.Avinash Jaryal, Advocate . ORDER
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President, (Oral).
Admitted facts giving rise to this case are, that respondents vehicle bearing registration No. HP-65-0403 Bolero Camper (LMV) met with an accident on 14.4.2003 at Samlon Nullah. It was being driven by Hari Chand who according to the respondent was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident.
After accident respondent took the vehicle to Shimla Automobiles, Nerchowk, District Mandi and paid Rs. 2000/- as its transportation charges. There he got the vehicle repaired at a cost of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Appellant had twice got the vehicle surveyed and the respondent had provided the necessary documents with a prayer for settlement of the claim at the earliest, but without any consequence. To the contrary on 15.12.2003 appellant repudiated the claim.
In the aforesaid background, complaint was filed because there was deficiency in service. Respondent claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- towards insurance claim, also compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, as well as Rs. 10,000/- as damages.
Another admitted fact that needs to be noted here is that the vehicle in question was purchased by the respondent with the loan availed by him from the Himachal Gramin Bank, Pangna Branch, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi.
Appellant contested the claim of the respondent and pleaded there was no deficiency in service on its part. Claim was been found to be not genuine after due investigation, the complaint was not maintainable, thus the repudiation was justified. Respondent was also guilty of violating the terms and conditions of policy because at the time of accident gratuitous passengers were travelling in it which was impermissible as per insurance policy. Financier of the vehicle was a necessary party. Vehicle being insured with the appellant was not disputed, But its having been hired by S/Sh. Thakur Dass and Prem Singh for transportation of the peas crop to Shimla was denied. It was also denied that they were travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident for collection of peas from village Masog in their capacity of crop owners. To the contrary it was pleaded that both of them were gratuitous passengers in the vehicle, as such appellant was not liable to indemnify the respondents.
District Forum below after conclusion of the case has ordered the payment of Rs. 1,10,250/- by the appellant to the respondent with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 15.12.2003 till the entire amount was realized, besides Rs. 2500/- as compensation and cost of lititation. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
Mr. Singh on behalf of the appellant urged that terms of policy, particularly its limitation clause was not at all examined by District Forum, therefore it fell into error in passing the impugned order. Vehicle being admittedly meant and adapted for carriage of goods, was carrying of two passengers contrary to the terms of policy, as such complaint in no case could have been allowed. Both these pleas have been controverted on behalf of the respondent. It was urged by Mr. Jaryal that two persons in the vehicle at the time of accident were those who after hiring the vehicle were going to collect their peas crop from their village for being brought to Shimla.
Thus according to him there was no violation of any of the condition of policy of insurance, atleast of all its limitation clause. Alternatively he submitted that even if two persons were gratuitous passengers alleged, still it will not make any difference so far impugned order is concerned, unless it was shown by legally acceptable, cogent and reliable evidence that carriage of these two passengers was the sole and main cause of accident and had contributed in it. This matter is otherwise no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B.V.Nagaraju Versus M/s Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2054 therefore, even if the plea that two passengers were travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident is of no consequence, unless it was established that the carriage of two persons was the sole and main cause of accident, or atleast having contributed in it.
So far respondent is concerned he is not aggrieved from the impugned order of the District Forum below as he has filed no appeal against it.
No other point was urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion while dismissing the appeal order of the District Forum below is upheld, leaving the parties to bear their own cost.
All interim orders passed from time to time shall stand vacated forthwith. Office will make available copy of this order to the parties free of cost as per Rules.
(Justice Arun Kumar Goel)Retd.
President (Narender Singh Thakur) Member Suneera (Saroj Sharma) 17.7.2006 Member