Back
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUCKNOW
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President;
Mr. D.D. Bahuguna, Sr. Member & Mrs. Rachna, Member
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED, MUZAFFAR NAGAR—Appellant
versus
VIVEK JAIN—Respondent
Appeal No. 781/SC of 2001—Decided on 4.9.2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Vineet Srivastava, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. H.K. Srivastava, Advocate.
The liability of the Insurance Company to pay for the charges of the relief tanker was justified based on the interpretation of the exclusion clause in the insurance policy and the actions taken for the benefit of the Insurance Company.
Headnote:
Insurance - Relief Tanker Charges - Clause C under item 3 of the Exclusion Clause - [Clause C under item 3 of the Exclusion Clause] - The court discussed the terms of the policy and interpreted the exclusion clause to determine the liability of the Insurance Company to pay for the charges of the relief tanker. The court found that the consequential loss arising from the loss of or damage to goods, as mentioned in the exclusion clause, did not apply to the facts of the case. The court emphasized that the complainant's actions in calling the relief tanker were for the benefit of the Insurance Company, and the Insurance Company was benefited by the act of the complainant in saving the furnace oil, thus justifying the decision of the learned District Forum to decree the complaint of the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's tanker, insured with the National Insurance Company, overturned, causing the furnace oil inside to leak. The Insurance Company paid for the loss of oil but refused to pay the charges of the relief tanker. The complainant filed a complaint seeking payment for the relief tanker charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant was entitled to the charges spent on transferring the oil to the relief tanker, as the actions were for the benefit of the Insurance Company. The court upheld the decision of the learned District Forum and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: Dispute over whether the complainant is entitled to the charges spent on transferring the oil to the relief tanker and the interpretation of the exclusion clause in the insurance policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The complainant's actions in calling the relief tanker were for the benefit of the Insurance Company, justifying the liability of the Insurance Company to pay for the charges of the relief tanker.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum were confirmed. The appellant was 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 23.2.2001 passed by District Consumer Forum, Muzaffar Nagar in Complaint Case No. 210/1997.
2. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant having a Tanker No. 12-B-2879 which was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited for bringing furnace oil from Bombay to Mathura Refinery. During the course of insurance policy, on 18.11.1996 in Madhya Pradesh on A.B. Road near Maksi this tanker which was loaded with furnace oil overturned on account of which the furnace oil which was inside the tanker started leaking speedily. The Insurance Company at Ujjain was informed of this fact and an F.I.R. was also lodged with the police station. The Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor and got the survey made. On the instruction of Sri O.P. Garg, Surveyor, a relief Tanker was called and the leftover furnace oil in the damaged tanker was transferred to the relief tanker. The bill of this relief tanker was also given to the Insurance Company but the Insurance Company has paid the amount of loss of oil but has not paid the charges of this refilling tanker amounting to Rs. 27,550/-. The Insurance Company was contacted and they assured that the payment will be made. When the payment has not been made, the complainant has filed this complaint.
3. The opposite party in its written version has admitted the insurance of the tanker and has alleged that it is not liable to pay the charges for the relief tanker as there was no term in the policy.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective contention before the learned District Forum, who after considering the evidence on record, directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 27,550/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 18.11.1996 till the date of payment and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was also awarded as cost.
5. Aggrieved against this order the opposite party, National Insurance Company Limited has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by learned District Consumer Forum.
6. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties. The only point of dispute in the present case is whether the complainant is entitled to the charges spent by him in getting the oil which was lying inside the damaged tanker transferred to the relief tanker or not. According to the learned Counsel for the complainant, this relief tanker was called at the instance of the Surveyor and he has promised to pay the charges and as such the Insurance Company is liable to pay its charges. On the other hand, the Insurance Company has denied this fact and the learned Counsel has argued that there is no term in the policy for the same. According to him the exclusion clause excludes the payment of this amount.
7. A perusal of the Surveyor report dated 12.12.1996 will go to show that he was appointed to survey the accidented tanker, he found that the tanker was damaged at that place and on account of which the furnace oil was spread over the road, lying in the nearby field/trench/ditches/or soaked by loose soil. He had written that after inspection, the Surveyor along with insured’s representative Mr. Subhash Jain returned back to Maksi and awaiting the arrival of relief tanker. He has further alleged that on 21.11.1996 at about 6.00 a.m. they received a message that relief tanker No. UP 12A/3187 has arrived with necessary arrangements. Thereafter he immediately went to the spot and got the oil transported from the damaged tanker to the relief tanker and got the oil weighed. Thus, this clearly goes to show that the tanker as alleged by the complainant was called for at the instance of the Surveyor so that the oil which is still in the damaged tanker may be saved and the Insurance Company may not be put to loss. In case the relief tanker would not have been arranged then the oil which was lying inside the damaged tanker would have also spread out and its loss would
