State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd vs Thanwar Yadav on 19 October, 2011
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
(A/11/2601)
Appeal No.320/2011
Instituted on : 01.06.2011
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Shop No.412, 413, 4th Floor, Ravi Bhavan,
Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant
Vs.
Thanwar Yadav, S/o Shri Sonchand Yadav,
R/o : Village - Maraud, P.O. Sirpur,
Tehsil & District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:-
Shri S.Pandya, for appellant.
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for respondent.
ORDER (ORAL)
Dated : 19/10/2011 PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S. C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.05.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.191/2010, whereby allowing complaint of the respondent herein, the appellant/Insurance Company has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,22,326/- to the complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till date of payment and also to pay // 2 // Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation on account of damages to the insured vehicle Swaraj Mazda, in a road accident.
2. It is not in dispute that a vehicle Swaraj Mazda bearing No.C.G.04/J-8442 is of the registered ownership of the respondent, Thanwar Yadav and was insured by the appellant Insurance Company for a period between 19.10.2008 to 18.10.2009 as Goods Carrying vehicle and licence carrying capacity including driver was three as per terms of the policy.
3. In nutshell, the complaint of the respondent/complainant before District Forum was that on 13.12.2008, when the vehicle was going back to his village after unloading Paddy crop in the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Mahasamund, then near Chaporadih, it collided against a tree and two labours, who were there in the vehicle died in the accident. Immediately, the incident was reported to the Insurance Company and later on a claim was also preferred by the complainant. Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor, who assessed the loss to the vehicle. As per case of the complainant, loss to the vehicle was to the tune of Rs.3,25,000/- and Insurance Company is liable to pay that much amount. Claim of the complainant was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that five labours were traveling in the vehicles whereas sitting capacity of the vehicle was only three and // 3 // thus the vehicle in question was overloaded and it was a violation of the terms of the insurance policy, so the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. When consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum, then also the same defence was taken by the Insurance Company to deny its liability to pay any amount of compensation to the complainant.
4. Learned District Forum, did not agree with the defence taken by the Insurance Company and allowed the complaint by the impugned order.
5. We have heard arguments advanced by both parties and perused record of the District Forum.
6. The insurance policy issued by the appellant/Insurance Company has been brought on record at page No.23 of the record of the District Forum. As per this insurance policy, licensed carrying capacity including the Driver was three. Thus, excluding driver, only two persons were permitted to travel in the vehicle, may be coolies. The computation chart for premium is also available at page No.22 of the record of the District Forum. An additional premium of Rs.25/- was also collected to cover the legal liability regarding cleaner/conductor and/Coolies not exceeding 6 in number (excluding driver), but in this column, it has been mentioned that number of // 4 // persons covered under the policy is only one. Under another clause, additional premium of Rs.75/- was also collected, in respect of legal liability for non fare paying passengers including employees and here again, the liability regarding one person was accepted. Thus, apart from driver of the vehicle, premium for two more persons, traveling in the vehicle in the capacity of non fare paying passengers or coolie was accepted by the Insurance Company and so, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the complainant, if so much number of passengers were traveling in the vehicle.
7. It is true that at the relevant time, in all five persons were there in the vehicle including driver and so boarding capacity was exceeded upto some extent, but as only two more passengers than the sitting capacity, were traveling in the vehicle, so it can not be held that vehicle was very much overloaded and this has became cause of the accident. There appears some violation of the terms of the policy, but the violation is not regarding any material term and therefore, looking to nature of this violation, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the complainant at least on non-standard basis and in repudiating the claim of the complainant in toto, it definitely committed deficiency in service, providing cause of action to the complainant to file consumer complaint before the District Forum and therefore, the complaint of the complainant was justified.
// 5 //
8. Admittedly, Surveyor namely Shri Shyam Chhabra was appointed by the Insurance Company. His Report has been brought on record as document O.P.2. He has assessed the liability of the Insurance Company on different considerations. Firstly he has assessed the loss on account of damage bases and it was found that the liability of the Insurance Company would be Rs.2,22,326/-. The second assessment was on net of salvage settlement basis and on that basis the amount of compensation payable by the Insurance Company, has been determined as Rs.2,02,000/-. The agreed/negotiated salvage value has been mentioned as Rs.1,50,000/-. The salvage has been retained by the insured. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no bills were provided by the insured to the Insurance Company in respect of repairing of the vehicle, therefore, no compensation can be paid to the complainant on repairing basis and therefore, the assessment on net of salvage basis, appears reasonable and it was required to be taken into consideration by the District Forum. He submitted that District Forum, has committed a mistake in awarding amount on repairing basis.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant also agreed that bills of repairs of the vehicle were not provided by the complainant to the Insurance Company and no such bills were filed before the District Forum also. Thus, computation of compensation on // 6 // net of salvage basis taking into consideration the I.D.V. and value of the salvage appears appropriate and we deem it proper to award compensation on that basis.
10. As there was violation of terms of the insurance policy, though it was not material, but as vehicle was overloaded at the time of incident, therefore, award should be on non-standard basis and not of full amount, as assessed by the Surveyor.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal succeeds in part and is allowed. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to pay 75% of Rs.2,02,000/-, which works out to be Rs.1,51,500/- to the respondent/complainant/insured along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till date of payment. So far as amount of compensation awarded under the head mental agony and amount of cost awarded by the District Forum for the litigation, no interference is made in this appeal. Thus, the appeal is disposed of with these directions. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice S.C. Vyas) (Smt. Veena Misra) (V.K. Patil)
President Member Member
/10/2011 /10/2011 /10/2011