State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
P.Ramakrishna Reddy,Kadapa. vs United India Insurance Corporation ... on 30 March, 2010
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD F.A.No.1413/2007 against C.C.No.2/2006, Dist.Forum,Kadapa.. Between: P.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o.P.Gangi Reddy, Aged about 43 years, Hindu, Occ:Lorry Owner , R/o.D.No.4/480,Vivekananda Nagar, Kadapa. Appellant/ Complainant And United India Insurance Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional manager, Divisional Office, Dobighat Road, Kadapa. Respondent/ Opp.party Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.G.Vijay Kumar Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.G.Ramachandra Reddy CORAM:SMT. M.SHREESHA, HONBLE MEMBER
And SRI.R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TEN.
Oral Order (Per Smt M.Shreesha, Honble Member) **** Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.2/2006 on the file of District Forum, Kadapa, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of mini lorry no. AP04-U-4841 and he got insured it with the opposite party by paying premium of Rs.10,853/- coverage period being from 4.10.2002 to 3.10.2003. On 5.12.2002 while Chamanthi flower baskets belonging to different farmers were being transported from Kadapa to Chennai and the lorry was returning on 6.12.2002 along with said ryots who transported the Chamanthi flowers and when the said vehicle reached Rajampet Main Road the lorry hit a tree and two persons sitting inside the cabin died and others sitting in the lorry received injuries. The case was registered as Crime no.70/2002 against the driver of the said mini lorry and the accident was intimated to the opposite party insurance company who appointed insurance surveyor and he inspected the damaged vehicle and submitted his report. The complainant got the damaged vehicle shifted to M/s.Standard Automotives Eicher, Kadapa and also paid towing charges of Rs.1500/-. An estimate was given by the authorized dealer for Eicher and the complainant spent Rs.2 lakhs and got his vehicle repaired and it took three months time for getting the vehicle repaired. the complainant submits that he earns not less than Rs.10,000/- per month after deducting expenses and loan instalment. The complainant lost Rs.30,000/- income in three months. The opposite party vide letter dt.26.2.2004 repudiated the claim on the ground that 11 passengers excluding the driver and the cleaner were traveling in the vehicle which is violative of the terms and conditions. The complainant replied stating that 6 tons of load mentioned in the claim form is the carrying capacity of the vehicle and the persons in the said lorry who died are the owners of Chamanti flowers and it is they who engaged the lorry and they are all owners of the goods as shown in the FIR. But there was no response from the opposite party. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.2,50,000/- towards the claim amount together with interest, compensation and costs.
Opposite party filed counter admitting that the mini lorry which is the goods carrier vehicle was insured by them and that as per the R.C. of the vehicle in column no.19 the seating capacity is 3 in all and as such carrying of passengers as owner of goods does not arise. Three passengers who are permitted to travel in the vehicles cabin alone are driver, cleaner and one non-fare passenger. On perusal of the charge sheet led by the police after investigation it clearly reveals that 11 persons were traveling at the time of the accident excluding the driver, cleaner which is violation of terms and conditions of the policy and hence the repudiation is justified.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A11 and B1 to B4 dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The facts not in dispute are that the complainant insured his mini lorry bearing no.AP04-U-4841 with the opposite party by paying premium of Rs.10,853/- covering own damages as well as third party risk valid from 4.10.2002 to 3.10.2003. It is also not in dispute that the lorry on 6.12.2002 met with an accident on KodurRajampet main road. It is the case of the complainant that the lorry was transporting Chamanti flowers from Kadapa to Chennai on the previous day and while returning the next day, the accident occurred. It is the further case of the complainant that the mini lorry was carrying the owners of the flowers and it is the case of the respondent/opposite party that the lorry was carrying extra passengers i.e. in all 11 persons were in the vehicle apart from the driver and the cleaner and as per the terms and conditions, carrying these extra passengers are in violation of the policy and therefore their repudiation (Ex.A9) is justified. The learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party submitted that as per their terms and conditions only three persons are entitled to be in the lorry i.e. the driver, cleaner and one non-fare passenger. There is no documentary evidence filed by the opposite party that the travelling persons in the mini lorry were not owners of the goods. It is their case that if the vehicle as per Ex.B2 has a national permit and is a carrier for all the goods except prohibited and hence the vehicle is meant only for transport of goods and not for transport of passengers. We rely on the judgement of Apex Court in B.V.NAGARAJU vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., reported in II(1996) CPJ 28 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows:
Merely by lifting a person or two, or even three, by the driver or the cleaner of the vehicle, without the knowledge of owner, cannot be said to be such a fundamental breach that the owner should in all events, be denied indemnification. The misuse of the vehicle was somewhat irregular though , but not so fundamental in nature so as to put an end to the contract, unless some factors existed which, by themselves, had gone to contribute to the causing of the accident.
From the afore mentioned judgement it is clear that if the passengers traveling in the vehicle are not reason for the accident to have occurred, the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim on that ground alone. It is pertinent to note that the claim is for the damage caused for the vehicle and the complainant did not claim any amounts towards the injuries or death of the passengers. Keeping in view the afore mentioned judgement in view and also that the opposite party did not file any documentary evidence in support of their contention that the passengers traveling in the vehicle lead to the accident we are of the considered view that their repudiation is unjustified and we set aside the order of the District Forum and allow this appeal directing the opposite party to pay Rs.2 lakhs to the complainant with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation till the date of realisation together with costs of Rs.2000/-.
In the result this appeal is allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs.2 lakhs to the complainant with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation till the date of realisation together with costs of Rs.2000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
MEMBER MEMBER Dt.30.3.2010