State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New India Assurance vs Gajraj S/O Girdawal (Dead) & Others on 9 May, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/2013/261 (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission) 1. New India Assurance - ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Gajraj S/o Girdawal (Dead) & Others - ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Raj Kamal Gupta PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Mahesh Chand MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 09 May 2017 Final Order / Judgement RESERVED State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow Appeal No. 261 of 2013 New India Assurance Co. .......Appellant Versus Gajraj& Others. ......Respondents Present:- Hon'ble Sri Raj Kamal Gupta, Presiding Member.
Hon'ble Sri Mahesh Chand, Member.
Sri Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant.
SriUmesh Kumar Srivastavfor the Respondents.
Date: 06.7.2017 Judgment
Sri Mahesh Chand,Member-This Appealunder section 15/17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, has been filed by the Appellantagainst the order dated 18.12.2012, passed by learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Maharajganj, in complaint case No 144/2009, Girdawal (Dead) & Other Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.& Others. By the impugned order the following order has been passed:-
" यह परिवाद विपक्षीगण के विरूद्ध इस प्रकार स्वीकार किया जाता है कि वे निर्णय से एक माह के अन्तर्गत बीमित राशि का ४० प्रतिशत परिवादीगण को तीन हजार रूपये वाद व्यय सहित भुगतान कर देंगे। असफल रहने पर तत्पश्चात कुल बकाया राशि पर १० प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्याज भी देय होगा।"
In brief the facts of the case are that the complainants had purchased a tractor (Swaraj-735 Make) on dated 20.1.2004 for which he got a loan of Rs.200,000/- from State Bank of India, Farenda Branch which has now been repaid. Its Chasis No. was QRTB 30405018100 and Engine no. 39133/03801240. This tractor was not registered with the RTO. It was insured with Appellants for a sum of Rs.160,000/-. The insurance was valid for the periodfrom dated 30.3.2008 to dated 29.3.2009. According to the complainants on dated 10.8.2008, this tractor was robbed of from the driver by some robbers. FIR was lodged with Police Station and the information of the incident was given to the insurance company also. The complainant filed the claim with the insurance company. But the insurance company closed the claim file. Being aggrieved with the closing of the claim file the complainants filed the complaint before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Maharajganj. The complaint case was opposed by the Appellant insurance company. During the pendency of the complaint case before the District Forum, the complainant Girdawal died. His legal heirs were impleaded as the parties to case. After hearing the parties the learned District Forum passed the above mentionedorder.
Being aggrieved with the above mentioned impugned order this appeal has been filed. The Appellant has taken the ground that the insured tractor was being used for commercial purpose while it was insured for the agricultural use only. The tractor was not registered with transport authorities. It was being plied in contravention of the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. The complainant was asked to provide the copies of the FIR and FR but he did not provide the same to the Appellant insurance company. Hence there was no alternative but to close the claim file. The learned District Forum ignored these material facts and provisions of law and passed the impugned order which is arbitrary and against the spirit of law. The Appellant pleaded to set aside the impugned order.
The Respondents filed the objections against the Appeal. In the objections it has been stated that the FIR of the incident of theft of tractor was lodged with the police. Charge Sheet has been filed by the police in the court. The matter is subj-judice before the Court of Additional District& Session Judge, Maharajganj. The case No. 41 OF 2009, u/s 379/328 of IPC, State vs Ramakant alias Raju is pending.The Respondents made an objection regarding 20 days delay in filing the Appeal. In the objections all the averments of the grounds of Appeal have been denied. The respondents have pleaded to dismiss the appeal as there was no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
We heard the arguments of the learned counsels of both the parties and perused the documents on file. The Appellants have filed the delay condonation application supported with an affidavit of Shri Vijai Kumar Sinha, Dy Manager of the Appellant Insurance Company. The reasons of delay have been explained and we are satisfied with explanation. Hence the delay is condoned. From the perusal of documents it is apparent that since the charge sheet has been filed in the court, there should not be any doubt regarding the theft of the vehicle. Since the case regarding the theft is pending before the court of Additional District & Session Judge, Maharajganj, hence the complainant could not provide the copy of FR to the Appellants. The theft occurred during the validity of insurance policy, so the insured is entitled to get the compensation of the stolen tractor. The Respondent -Complainant plied the tractor without registering with RTO and committed offence under the Motor Vehicle Act. This is under purview of Transport Authority or Police and in the domain of Insurance Company. They too should have not insured the tractor before the registration. So far as breach of the terms and conditions of the policy is concerned regarding use of vehicle for commercial purpose, the rulings in this respect referred by the Appellant pertains to the case of accident. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Nitin Khandelwal[Appeal (civil) 3409 of 2008National Insurance Co. Ltd.vs Nitin Khandelwal]allowed compensation at the standard rate of 75% of the insured value. The learned District Forum has rightly allowed the compensation @40% taking into consideration the breach of terms & conditions the policy and violating the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. We do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. In view of the above discussions, this bench is of the opinion that the Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Order Appeal is dismissed. The Appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,006/- for expenses on treatment and Rs.5000/- for compensation towards mental agony to the Respondents with in a period of 45 days from the date of this order. The Respondents shall be entitled for interest @9 % p.a. on the above amounts from the date of filing the complaint to the date of actual payment. The parties will bear their own costs. Hence no order to the costs.
(Raj Kamal Gupta) (Mahesh Chand) Presiding Memeber Member S.k. st. ct-5 [HON'BLE MR. Raj Kamal Gupta] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Mahesh Chand] MEMBER