State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd vs Ramakant Shukla & Anr. on 19 March, 2024
Appeal Nos.: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/252 Vs. 19/03/2024
Ramakant Shukla & Anr.
AFR / NAFR
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Date of Institution: 06/11/2023
Date of Final Hearing: 01/03/2024
Date of Pronouncement: 19/03/2024
APPEAL No.- FA/23/252
IN THE MATTER OF :
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Branch Office: Hotel Laxman Avenue, Near Saheed Park,
Maharani Hospital Road, Jagdalpur, Dist. Bastar (CG)
Through: Manager, Regional Office,
1st Floor, Prakash Swimming Pool Building,
Ring Road No.1, Pachpedinaka, Raipur,
Dist. RAIPUR (C.G.) ... Appellant
Through: Shri P.K. Paul, Advocate
Vs.
1. Ramakant Shukla,
S/o. Shri Bholanath Shukla,
R/o. Ward No.7, Geedam, P.S. Geedam,
Dist. DAKSHIN BASTAR DANTEWADA (CG) ... Respondent No.1
Through: Shri N.K. Shrivastava, Advocate
2. Chhattisgarh Government,
Through: Collector, Dantewada,
Dist. DAKSHIN BASTAR DANTEWADA (CG) ... Respondent No.2
Through: Shri Ajay Sahu, Advocate
CORAM: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER
PRESENT: -
Shri P.K. Paul, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri N. K. Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri Ajay Sahu, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
J U DGE M E NT PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This appeal, filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter called "the Act" for short) is directed against order dated 09/12/2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dakshin Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) (hereinafter called the "District Commission" for short) in Complaint Case No.CC/2023/01, whereby the complaint was partly allowed and the opposite party No.1 insurance company, the appellant herein was directed to pay the complainant / respondent No.1 within one month compensation of Dismissed Page 1 of 8 Appeal Nos.: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/252 Vs. 19/03/2024
Ramakant Shukla & Anr.
Rs.2,87,900/- for insured vehicle which was damaged in an accident along with simple interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing complaint 19.12.2022, failing which the interest was directed to be paid @ 9% p.a. Compensation for physical and mental agony Rs.10,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.3,000/-
was also directed to be paid.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of this case in brief are that admittedly the complainant / respondent No.1 is the registered owner of Tavera vehicle bearing registration No.CG-17-SS-0726, which was insured by the opposite party No.1/ appellant for the period between 24.09.2018 to 23.09.2019. The said vehicle was acquisitioned by the opposite party No.2/ respondent No.2 Office of the Collector & District Election Officer, Dist. Dakshin Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) on 13.10.2018 in connection with Legislative Assembly Election 2018 and during the period of such acquisition on 04.11.2018 the insured vehicle met with an accident. Intimation was given to the opposite party No.1/ appellant insurance company. Surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,87,900/-, but the opposite party No.1/ appellant repudiated the claim on the pretext that the vehicle was being used as taxi on hire with the Government of Chhattisgarh for election duty, whereas it was registered as a private car. Thereafter, compensation was demanded from the Office of the Collector Dantewada (CG) then a letter was sent by the Office of the Collector Dantewada (CG) to the opposite party No.1/ insurance company to the effect that the vehicle was acquisitioned for election duty under Section 160 and 162 of the Representation of People Act 1951, which does not come under the category of hire, hence quick action be taken in the matter and the same be informed to them. But even then committing Dismissed Page 2 of 8 Appeal Nos.: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/252 Vs. 19/03/2024
Ramakant Shukla & Anr.
deficiency in service the claim amount was not paid by the opposite party No.1/ insurance company hence complaint was filed.
3. The opposite party No.1/ insurance company in its written version mainly took defence that as the vehicle was acquisitioned for election duty for on hire of Rs.22,000/-, however the same was not paid till investigation by investigator of the insurance company Mr. A. K. Dixit. It was further averred that legal opinion of their panel lawyer Mr. Rameshwar Mishra and thereafter Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh were also called, who opined that when the vehicle has been requisitioned by the Collector under Representation of People Act 1951 the State Government shall be liable to make the payment of compensation and not the insurance company. Hence it was prayed that complainant / respondent No.1 is not entitled to get any relief from the opposite party No.1/ insurance company, hence the complaint be dismissed with cost.
4. The opposite party No.2/ respondent No.2 in its written version denied its liability on the ground that the vehicle was acquisitioned in connection with Assembly Election 2018 and given to the Sector Officer No.4 Shri I.A. Paikra. But the complainant used to take the vehicle to his native village for which the Sector Officer instructed him as the vehicle is engaged in election duty he should leave the vehicle but he did not accept the instructions and took vehicle from where while coming back the vehicle met with an accident. The complainant/ respondent No.1 was asked to submit documents related to the accident like copy of FIR etc. but he did not submit any documents. As the vehicle was insured by the opposite party No.1/ appellant hence the total liability is of the insurer. It was further averred that an amount of Rs.22,000/- was paid to the complainant / respondent No.1 but it was also made clear vide letter Dismissed Page 3 of 8 Appeal Nos.: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/252 Vs. 19/03/2024
Ramakant Shukla & Anr.
dated 05.03.2021 written to the appellant/ opposite party No.1 that the vehicle was acquisitioned under section 160, 162 of the Representation of People Act 1951 for execution of Zone Inspection during Assembly Election 2018 and the whatever amount paid for the same does not come under the category of hire.
5. Learned District Commission by the impugned order has partly allowed the complaint with the directions as mentioned hereinabove in paragraph No.1.
6. We have heard final arguments of all parties and perused the record. We have also gone through the written arguments submitted by learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent No.1.
7. The first and foremost document which seek our attention looking to the entire set of facts of the present case is the letter of repudiation copy of which is filed by the respondent No.1/ complainant as Exhibit C-09 and original is filed by the appellant/ opposite party No.1 as OP-1 Exhibit -15. In the said letter of repudiation dated 23.07.2019 the only reason assigned for repudiating the claim is "At the time of accident vehicle was being used as hire taxi by the CG Govt for Election duty while vehicle was registered as Private Car. This is excluded as per Limitation as to use: 1. The Policy covers use of the vehicle for any purpose other than a) Hire or reward" and it was mentioned that "Hence the claim has been repudiated by the Competent Authority". Thereafter the respondent No.1 / complainant approached the Collector & Election Officer of Dakshin Bastar Dantewara (C.G.) who wrote letters to the appellant / opposite party No.1 insurance company to the effect that the vehicle acquisitioned in connection with Assembly Election 2018 under section 160, 162 of the Dismissed Page 4 of 8 Appeal Nos.: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/252 Vs. 19/03/2024
Ramakant Shukla & Anr.
Representation of People Act 1951 and whatever amount has been given for the same does not come under the category of hire or reward.
8. In fact this was not the ground of repudiation of claim that the vehicle was acquisitioned by the Collector & Election Officer under the Representation of People Act 1951, hence the State Government is liable to pay the compensation and not the insurance company. In the letter of repudiation the only ground of exclusion of limitation as to use of the insured vehicle has been taken very specifically that the vehicle was being used for hire, whereas the policy covers use of the vehicle for any purpose other than a) Hire or reward. As per settled principle of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No.2059 of 2015, order dated 13.12.2019 and JSK Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No.7630 of 2022, order dated 18.07.2023 the insurance company cannot go beyond the grounds taken in repudiation letter.
9. In Saurashtra Chemical Ltd. (supra) judgement the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.23 has held as under : -
"23. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the law, as laid down in Galada [Galada Power & Telecommunication Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2016) 14 SCC 161: (2017) 2 SCC (Civ) 765] on Issue (2), still holds the field. It is a settled position that an insurance company cannot travel beyond the grounds mentioned in the letter of repudiation. If the insurer has not taken delay in intimation as a specific ground in letter of repudiation, they cannot do so at the stage of hearing of the consumer complaint before NCDRC."
The above ratio of the decision was regarded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgement in JSK Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and in paragraph No.14 it was held that : -
14. --------. Thus, following the ratio of the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. (supra), the National Commission ought not to have gone beyond the grounds of repudiation and into the nature of coverage, which according to the National Commission had effectively changed from "anywhere in India to anywhere in India" to a sales turnover policy, limiting the Dismissed Page 5 of 8 Appeal Nos.: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/252 Vs. 19/03/2024
Ramakant Shukla & Anr.
policy coverage of the subject-goods from the points of departure at the two locations at Silvassa. These are all terms of art applicable to the insurance trade but we do not consider it necessary to dilate on this aspect of the dispute having regard to the decision of this Court in the case of Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. (supra).
The above law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly envisages that neither the insurance company nor the Consumer Commissions can go beyond the grounds of repudiation and if the insurer has not taken any issue as a specific ground in the letter of repudiation, they cannot do so at the stage of hearing of the consumer complaint before a Consumer Commission.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant / opposite party No.1 insurance company has relied upon judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepa Devi & Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 414 and Judgement of High Court of Chhattisgarh in State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. Vs. Rajesh Kuar Kashyap, MAC No.882 of 2014 decided on 14.03.2019 and argued that as the vehicle in question was requisitioned by the Chhattisgarh Government in connection with Assembly Election 2018, hence due to handing over possession of the vehicle, the Chhattisgarh Government is liable to compensate the loss suffered by the insured vehicle. He prayed that the impugned order be set aside with direction to the respondent No.1/ complainant for payment of cost to the appellant/ opposite party No.1. We have gone through the above judgements relied by learned counsel for the appellant/ opposite party No.1 but both judgements are based on different set of facts as in those cases third party insurance claim was involved whereas in the instant case claim of own damage is involved, hence they can safely be distinguished.
11. Now the only question seeks consideration is whether the vehicle was being used in violation of limitation as to use covered under the Dismissed Page 6 of 8 Appeal Nos.: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/252 Vs. 19/03/2024
Ramakant Shukla & Anr.
insurance policy. As the Collector & Election Officer Dantewada vide letter dated 05.03.2021 informed the insurance company and in other words certified that the vehicle was acquisitioned under Section 160 and 162 of the Representation of People Act 1951 in connection with Assembly Election 2018 and whatever amount received by the respondent No.1/ complainant does not come under the category of hire or reward is sufficient to show that the vehicle was engaged in performance of statutory duties under Section 160 and 162 of the Representation of People Act 1951 in connection with Assembly Election 2018 and whatever amount given to the respondent No.1/ complainant does not come under the category of hire or reward, hence no question arises that the vehicle was being used violating the condition of limitation to use and the appellant / insurance company had committed deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the respondent No.1/ complainant. It is also pertinent to mention here that the respondent No.1/ complainant was having no other option but to give the vehicle under acquisition when the Collector & District Election Officer in connection with assembly elections 2018. There was no agreement between the respondent No.1 / complainant for giving the vehicle on hire or reward.
12. So far as question of quantum of award is concerned, learned District Commission has awarded Rs.2,87,900/- which was the net assessed amount of loss by the surveyor and appears to be just and proper. The compensation awarded for physical and mental agony Rs.10,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.3,000/- also appears justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and we do not find reason to interfere with the same accordingly the impugned order calls for no interference. Dismissed Page 7 of 8 Appeal Nos.: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Date of Pronouncement:
FA/23/252 Vs. 19/03/2024
Ramakant Shukla & Anr.
13. With the foregoing discussion, this appeal being devoid of any merits is dismissed and the impugned order is affirmed. The appellant / opposite party No.1 shall bear their own cost of this appeal and that of the respondent No.1/ complainant which is quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) payable within 45 days from the date of this order.
(Justice Gautam Chourdiya) (Pramod Kumar Varma)
President Member
/03/2024 /03/2024
Pronounced on: 19th March 2024
Dismissed Page 8 of 8