National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Oriental Insurance Company vs Girbar Sinh Nandwanshi & Anr. on 3 June, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1174 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 22/01/2011 in Appeal No. 2403/2009 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh) 1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY Through Chief Manager, 88, Janpath New Delhi Delhi ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. GIRBAR SINH NANDWANSHI & ANR. R/o. Gram: Barkhari, (Bandol) Seoni Madhya Pradesh 2. M/S. CHINDWARA MOTORS Through its Authorised Officer, Parasia Road Chhindwara ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : MS. MANJUSHA WADHWA For the Respondent :
Dated : 03 Jun 2015 ORDER Oriental Insurance Company Limited (for short "the Insurance Company") has filed this Revision Petition, questioning the correctness of order, dated 22.01.2011, passed by the Madhya Pradesh State -2- Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bhopal (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal no.2403 of 2009. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while allowing the Appeal filed by the Complainant against order, dated 07.11.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Jabalpur (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case no.69 of 2009, has directed the Insurance Company to settle the claim preferred by the Complainant @ 75% of the loss, as assessed by the Surveyor, at Rs.2,17,736/-, occasioned to the vehicle on account of an accident. The State Commission has directed that a sum of Rs.15,000/- can be deducted by the Insurance Company as the value of the salvage. In nutshell, the Insurance Company has been directed to pay to the Complainant a total sum of Rs.1,48,302/- against his claim, within one month of the date of its order, failing which the said amount was to attract interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the said order till realization.
Despite service no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Complainant. However, written submissions have been received from Counsel for the Complainant by post.
Having heard learned Counsel for the Insurance Company and perused the written submissions, we are of the opinion that the Revision Petition is without any substance.
-3-The claim preferred by the Complainant for the loss suffered by him, on account of accident of the insured vehicle, viz. Mahindra Bolero during the period when it was covered under the Insurance policy, was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the sole ground that at the time of accident, 13 passengers were travelling in it as against the permitted sitting capacity of six persons and therefore, there was breach of the conditions in the policy. Setting aside the said decision of the Insurance Company, the State Commission has come to the conclusion that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 4 SCC 536, such overloading cannot be considered as a fundamental breach of the policy conditions and therefore, the claim of the Complainant had to be settled on non-standard basis.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has vehemently submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo's case (supra) is distinguishable on facts, inasmuch as in that case, the question was whether running of a commercial vehicle on hire amounted to breach of contract, whereas the present case is one of overloading. She further submits that since the overloading of the -4- vehicle could be the cause of accident, it is clear case of fundamental breach of conditions of the policy and therefore, the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim.
Having carefully gone through the said decision, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned Counsel. In that case, while holding that in a case of overloading, the claim had to be processed on non-standard basis, the Hon'ble court has relied on the instructions/guidelines issued by the Insurance Company itself. The instructions clarify that in a case of overloading of a vehicle, beyond licensed carrying capacity, the claim preferred by the Insured should be paid @ 75% of the admissible claim. Admittedly, the said guidelines/instructions are still in vogue. Insofar as the plea that overloading could be the cause of accident, we find that the Insurance Company did not lead any evidence in that behalf. It is also pertinent to note that an FIR relating the accident was registered against the driver of the other vehicle.
In view of the above and in the light of aforenoted authoritative pronouncement, no fault can be found with the impugned order, warranting interference in our limited Revisional Jurisdiction. Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed. However, since the Complainant remains unrepresented, there will be no order as to costs.
-5-We direct that if the compensation as awarded by the State Commission has already been deposited, either in the State Commission or in the District Forum, the same shall be released to the Complainant forthwith on his moving a formal application in that behalf. However, if no deposit has been made by the Insurance Company, the amount due in terms of the impugned order shall be paid to the Complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER