JUDGMENT :

Madhuresh Prasad, J.

The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent- Insurance Company to pay the insured amount as per award of the Insurance Ombudsman, Patna, dated 13-09-2019 bearing No. I0/PAT/GI/0031/2019-2020 in respect of the petitioner’s claim under Insurance Policy No. 332402/31/2017/2061 arising on account of accident of the insured vehicle (truck).

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts are that the petitioner is owner of the truck bearing Registration No. JH10 AL/2281, Engine No-B5918032B1G63335816, Chassis No. MAT 466388D2G08191. The truck is a Tata LPT 3118 TC. Vehicle insured under Policy No. 332402/31/2017/2061.The truck met with an accident. The petitioner submitted a claim for full damage of the truck. The respondent-Insurance Company wrote to the petitioner alleging that since one Srikant Kumar was travelling in the truck, at the time of accident, even though it was a goods carriage truck, therefore, the petitioner was asked as to why not his claim be not repudiated due to violation of Policy terms in respect of “Limitation as to use”.

3. The petitioner, on the other hand, asserted that the person, who was travelling in the vehicle, at the time of accident, was a gratuitous passenger travelling in the goods carrying vehicle, as he requested for a ride because on the date of accident, no public service vehicle was plying and the person, who was a Central Reserve Police Force (‘CRPF’ for short) personnel was eager to return to his home and had forced himself in the vehicle in question. Being dissatisfied with the petitioner’s response, the petitioner’s claim was repudiated by the Branch Manager vide communication dated 21.12.2018.

4. The petitioner, in the circumstances, moved the Office of the Insurance Ombudsman, Patna, being aggrieved by repudiation of his claim. The Insurance Ombudsman allowed the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 13.09.2019 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) in the following terms:-

“22) Result of hearing with both parties (observations @ Conclusion);-The complainant Mr. Deepak Kumar had insured his truck with the respondent. The insured vehicle met with an accident on 05.02.2017. The claim lodged by the complainant was however declined by the respondent on the ground of the violation of the police conditions relation to “Limitations as to use” as one Cobra battalion person was travelling in the vehicle at the relevant time. The complainant submitted that the vehicle was carrying goods at the material time and no fare was collected from the Cobra battalion person. On the humanitarian ground the driver allowed him to enter the vehicle. The respondent is not able to prove that the Cobra battalion person was a fare paying passenger. The cause of loss is bursting of the tyre and the Cobra battalion person has not contributed in any way to the cause of loss. Therefore, Respondent decision of repudiating the claim is set aside and they are ordered to settle the claim of Rs. 14,70,500/-[(18,22,000 (IDV)-3,50,000/-(less salvage)-1.500 (less policy excess)]”

5. The respondent-Insurance Company has not assailed the order of the Insurance Ombudsman, but has issued one communication dated 19.12.2019, asking the petitioner to submit the Certificate of Registration (RC) cancellation Certificate in respect of Registration No. JH 10AL2281 of the truck in-question from the concerned District Transport Authority.

6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the terms of settlement of the Insurance Ombudsman are binding inter parties. The petitioner’s claim for ‘Total Loss’ (TL) of the vehicle was repudiated whereafter the Ombudsman has directed the Insurance Company to settle the claim in terms of the order, taken note of hereinabove. The orders of the Insurance Ombudsman is a settlement and not a normal case of ‘Total Loss’, as the claim for ‘Total Loss’ had, admittedly, been rejected by the respondent-Company. The petitioner, in the circumstance, cannot be made to get the Certificate