Back
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUCKNOW
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President &
Mr. D.D. Bahuguna, Member
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED—Appellant
versus
AVAISH AHMAD—Respondent
Appeal No. 387/SC of 1994—Decided on 19.12.2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. M.S. Kotwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. V.P. Sharma, Advocate.
The evidence must establish the cause of the accident for an insurance claim to be repudiated, and the Consumer Protection Act provides a valid remedy in addition to other available remedies.
Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - The court confirmed the claim of the complainant for the repair amount of the vehicle, as the evidence did not prove that overloading of the vehicle was the cause of the accident, and the Consumer Protection Act provides a remedy in addition to other available remedies.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's insured vehicle met with an accident due to the fault of another vehicle's driver. The insurance claim for repair amount was repudiated by the insurance company on the grounds of overloading of the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence did not prove overloading as the cause of the accident, and the complaint was valid under the Consumer Protection Act, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment of the District Forum.
Issues: Dispute over insurance claim for vehicle repair amount, alleged overloading of the vehicle, and the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The evidence did not establish overloading as the cause of the accident, and the Consumer Protection Act provides a valid remedy for the complainant.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and order of the District Forum were confirmed, with the appellant ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000 as cost to the complainant.
Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President— This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.1.1994 passed by District Consumer Forum, Allahabad in Complaint Case No. 372 of 1993.
2. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant owns Jeep No. MP 78/4035. This vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Company with effect from 10.1.1991 to 9.1.1992. According to complainant when this vehicle was coming from Allahabad on 5.9.1991 met with an accident on account of the fault of driver of vehicle No. URG 4267. A report of this incidence was lodged on 6.9.1991 and the survey was also done. The complainant presented a claim of Rs. 54,926.22, the amount of repair, to the Insurance Company. As the same has not been paid the present complaint has been file’.
3. The Insurance Company in its written version has alleged that only seven passengers are allowed to travel by the jeep but at the time of accident Surveyor found that mere were 11 persons in the jeep. Hence on this account the claim was repudiated.
4. The parties filed evidence and after considering the case of the parties, decreed the claim of Rs. 54,926.22 along with 12% per annum interest to be paid from December, 1991 till the date of payment. A sum of Rs. 200/- was also allowed as cost.
5. Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Forum, Insurance Company has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence on record.
7. It has not been denied by the Insurance Company that the accident did not take place. According to learned Counsel 11 passengers were sitting in the vehicle instead of 7 allowed. Therefore, there was a breach of condition of policy. Hence the claim was repudiated on 4.8.1992. The appellant has not filed any document to show that there were 11 passengers travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident. The reports of the two Surveyors has also not been filed to show that 11 passengers were found travelling in the jeep. There is no other evidence on record to show that 11 persons were travelling in the jeep. Therefore, this contention of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted and even if more persons are travelling than permitted, it has not been shown by evidence on record that overloading of the vehicle was the cause of the accident. Unless it is shown that the accident took place on account of overloading of the vehicle and the driver lost control of the vehicle only on this account, it cannot be said that the overloading of the vehicle was the cause of accident. There is no nexus between the overloading and the accident.
8. Learned Counsel has argued that this complaint should have been sent to the Civil Court for decision. This argument does not carry any force in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act and many decisions of the State Commission, National Commission and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The remedy provided under the Consumer Protection Act is a remedy in addition to other remedies which are available to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant cannot be asked to go to’ Civil Court.
9. Learned Counsel has argued that the Surveyor has awarded loss at Rs. 40,452/-. As mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment the report of the Surveyor has not been filed. Hence the learned District Forum was not bound by the report of the Surveyor if any.
10. It has also been argued before the learned District Forum that the complainant had not filed any receipt of the repair of the vehicle. The learned District Forum has mentioned in its judgment that the complainant has spent a sum of Rs. 54,926.22 in the repairing of the vehicle and has filed copies of bills before the District Forum. Thus the only evidence which was available before the District Forum was the evidence filed by the complainant for determining of the claim. It cannot be said that the copies of the bills whi
