National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Baljeet vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 2 December, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 454 OF 2013 (Against the order dated 21.09.2012 in First Appeal No. 205 & 137 of 2012 of the State Commission Haryana, Panchkula) Baljeet ........ Petitioner (s) s/o Sh.Charan Singh r/o Village and Post Office Mayyar, Tehsil and District Hisar Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. ......... Respondent (s) 93, Nai Anaj Mandi, Mandi Adampur District Hisar through Its Branch Manager BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR.SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. Sudhir Bisla, Advocate For the Respondent (s) : Mr. M.N.Singh, Advocate Dated : 02nd December, 2013 ORDER
JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Haryana dated 21.09.2012, whereby the appeal against the order of the District Forum Hisar was allowed and the complaint filed by the petitioner / complainant was dismissed.
2. Briefly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that Bolero jeep No. HR-20R 1341 owned by the petitioner was insured with the opposite party for Rs.4,70,000/-.
The insurance policy was valid from 20.01.2010 to 19.01.2011. On 27.06.2010, the aforesaid vehicle was stolen while parked near H.No. D-64, Sector 56, Noida. The matter was reported to the police on the same day vide FIR registered at PS Noida, Sector 58. Theft was also intimated to the opposite party / insurance company. The insurance claim of the petitioner was repudiated by the opposite party on three counts i.e. (i) the vehicle was parked in the street without any safety; (ii) the intimation of theft was given to the insurance company after a gap of three months; and (iii) that the vehicle was being used for hire whereas it was insured with the opposite party as private use vehicle.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the repudiation, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum Hisar.
4. District Forum Hisar on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and evidence came to the conclusion that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service by repudiating the claim and observed that despite of the fact that the vehicle was used for hire, the complainant was entitled to his insurance claim on non standard basis in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. CPJ 2010 (II). Accordingly, the claim of petitioner for 75% of the insurance value i.e. Rs.3,52,500/- was allowed. The opposite party was directed to comply with the order within 45 days of the receipt of the order failing which it was ordered that opposite party shall pay to the petitioner interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint. At the same time, complainant was also directed to execute all requisite documents and complete the formalities required by the opposite party / insurance company.
5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission Haryana. State Commission on consideration of record and evidence came to the conclusion that since petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, he was not entitled to the insurance claim in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills ( P ) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 1375 of 2003). Accordingly the appeal was accepted and the complaint filed by the petitioner / complainant was dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing the impugned order, has contended that the order of the State Commission in rejecting the complaint is not sustainable for the reason that the order is against the law laid down by Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Amalendu Sahoo (supra). Learned counsel further contended that the State Commission has committed a grave error in ignoring that this is a case of theft which has no causal relationship with the user of the insured vehicle for hire instead of private user. Learned counsel has thus urged us to accept the revision and set aside the impugned order and allow 100% insurance claim of Rs.4,70,000/- to the petitioner / complainant.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. He has drawn our attention to the copy of the FIR lodged by the driver of the vehicle in question at PS Noida, Sector 58 and submitted that on perusal of the FIR, it would be seen that the vehicle was given for hire to Power Grid Corporation, Bhiwani and on the date of theft, the driver of the vehicle had taken it to Sector 56, Noida for fetching DGM of the Power Grid Corporation. It is contended that from this, it is established that vehicle in question on the relevant day was being used for commercial purpose i.e. hire which is against the insurance policy as the jeep was insured as a private use vehicle.
It is argued that the State Commission has rightly relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills ( P ) Ltd. (supra ) while dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner.
8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. It is undisputed that the vehicle in question was insured when it was stolen on 27.06.2010. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was insured as private use vehicle but at the time of theft it was being used for commercial purpose i.e. on hire to Power Grid Corporation. Thus the only issue for determination in this revision petition is whether or not despite of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the petitioner is entitled to his claim on non standard basis. The above issue is no more resintegra.
The National Commission in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gian Singh (2006) 2 CPJ 83 (NC) while confronted with the above noted controversy has held that in the case of violation of condition of policy as to nature of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on non standard basis.
While coming to the aforesaid opinion, National Commission has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal (2008) 11 SCC
259.
9. We have considered the rival contentions. It is undisputed that the vehicle in question was insured on the date on which it was stolen. It is also undisputed that the vehicle was insured as a private use vehicle but it was being used for commercial purpose i.e. on hire to the Power Grid Corporation.
10. The District Forum Hisar on consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was insured under private car package policy but at the time of theft, it was being used on hire and reward basis in violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Despite of the said finding relying upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Amalendu Sahoo ( Supra), District Forum allowed the insurance claim of the petitioner on non-standard basis and awarded 75% of the insured value of the vehicle 352500/- to the complainant.
11. Undisputedly, insured vehicle of the petitioner was stolen on 27.06.2010. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was insured under private car package policy but on the relevant day it was being used on hire and reward basis in violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The question for determination in this revision petition is whether despite of aforesaid violation, the petitioner is entitled to insurance claim on non standard basis as was awarded by the District Forum?.
12. The above issue is no more resintegra. Similar question came up for consideration before the National Commission in the matter of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Gian Singh (2006) 2 CPJ 83 (NC) wherein it has been held that in case violation of conditions of the policy so as to nature of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on a non-standard basis.
13. The question whether the insurance company is justified in repudiating the claim of the insured for violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in the case of theft of vehicle came up before the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nitin Khandelwal (2008) 11 SCC 259, wherein the Honble Supreme Court observed thus:
In the case in hand, the vehicle has been snatched or stolen. In the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane. The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer.
The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis.
The Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft.
In the instant case, the State Commission allowed the claim only on non-standard basis, which has been upheld by the National Commission. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances in the case, the law seems to be well settled that in case of theft of vehicle, nature of use of the vehicle cannot be looked into and the Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim on that basis.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the real question is whether, according to the contract between the respondent and the appellant, the respondent is required to be indemnified by the appellant. On the basis of the settled legal position, the view taken by the State Commission cannot be faulted and the National Commission has correctly upheld the said order of the State Commission.
14. The above judgment of the Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, in our view, the State Commission has committed a grave error in accepting the appeal against the judgment of the District Forum. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
15. In the written statement, opposite party has tried to justify the repudiation on the ground that intimation of theft was given to the insurance company after a gap of three months. No doubt in para 3 of the complaint, it is alleged that theft took place on the intervening night of 26th & 27th June, 2010 and the FIR was registered at P.S. Gautam Budh Nagar on 27th October, 2010.
However, on perusal of the copy of the FIR filed on record, we find that it is a typographical error. The FIR was actually registered at P.S. Gautam Budh Nagar on 27th June, 2010 and not on 27th October, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner opposite party has failed to point out any evidence which would show that intimation regarding theft of vehicle was not given to the insurance company immediately. Therefore, we do not find any force in the above noted plea to justify the repudiation of claim.
16. In view of the above, the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable.
Revision petition, is, therefore, accepted. Impugned order of the State Commission is set aside and the order passed by the District Forum is confirmed. Parties to bear their own costs.
.
(AJIT BHARIHOKE, J) ( PRESIDING MEMBER) (SURESH CHANDRA) MEMBER Am/