Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President;
Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt & Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Members
JALMEDHA—Appellant
versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.—Respondent
Appeal No. 267 of 2002—Decided on 30.1.2003
For the Appellant :Mr. G.S. Rangi with Ms. Pooja Atri, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Ms. Ritu Verma, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of IMT-23 of the insurance policy, which excluded the peril of storm from the insurance cover.
Headnote:
Insurance - Car Insurance - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - IMT-23 of the Insurance Policy
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's car was damaged due to a storm, and the insurance claim was repudiated by the respondent insurance company. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, and the appellant filed an appeal against the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the peril of storm was excluded from the insurance cover as per IMT-23 of the policy, and the appellant had accepted the terms of the policy inclusive of this clause at the time of taking the policy. The court upheld the decision of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the insurance claim could be upheld despite the exclusion of storm peril in the insurance policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on IMT-23 of the insurance policy, which clearly excluded the peril of storm from the insurance cover. The appellant's own documents stated that the accident occurred due to a storm, which was excluded from the policy terms.
Final Decision: The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Member—The present appeal has been filed against order dated 2.9.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for brevity to be called as District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 500 of 1999, Ms. Jalmedha v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
2. The contextual facts narrated briefly are as under :
The car bearing No. HR-03B-750 owned by the appellant/complainant, Ms. Jalmedha was comprehensively insured vide Policy No. 110301/31/002/11/830/98 for the period 7.5.1998 to 16.5.1999 with the respondent/O.P. - Insurance Company and premium amounting to Rs. 8,131/- was received and stands confirmed by the respondent/O.P. vide Annexure C-2.
3. As per averments, the aforesaid vehicle was extensively damaged on 18.5.1998 on Ambala-Jagadhari Road when the driver of the vehicle in a bid to save a cyclist hit a eucalyptus tree accidentally, which fell on the car and front windscreen and roof of car were damaged. The respondent/O.P. was informed and the Surveyor deputed by the O.P.-Insurance Company told the appellant/complainant that the body shell of the vehicle was repairable and she was asked to get the vehicle dismantled. The appellant/complainant accordingly got the vehicle repaired but when the amount incurred on repairs was claimed by the appellant/complainant, the same was repudiated by the respondent/O.P.-Insurance Company on the ground that the car was damaged by a tree which fell on the car due to storm and since the risk of storm is not covered under the terms of Insurance Policy (Annexure C-10), the claim was rejected. The appellant/complainant has alleged that the repudiation of the claim specifically after the repairs were got carried in accordance with the direction of the Surveyor is a deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/O.P. She has prayed for a direction to the respondent/O.P. to reimburse Rs. 78,295.97 spent on the repairs of car, Rs. 1,100/- per day for 15 days (1,100 x 15 = 16,500) on account of visits to various offices of O.Ps., further compensation of Rs. 70,000/- in addition of litigation expenses of Rs. 5,500/-. The above amounts have been claimed with interest @ 24% from due date till realization.
4. In the reply filed by the respondent/O.P. - Insurance Company, it is pleaded, inter alia, that the claim was repudiated since it was not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. The allegation of deficiency in service has been denied. It was submitted that the repudiation was based on well-reasoned decision taken after the investigation. The respondent/O.P. further alleged that the appellant/complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands as a copy of the DDR No. 9 of 1998 placed on record shows that the car was damaged as a eucalyptus tree fell on the car because of the storm (Annexure R-1). Further, the appellant/complainant in the Claim Form submitted that the accident took place due to storm as the vehicle was hit by eucalyptus tree, copy of claim form has been brought on record vide Annexure R-2. The respondent/O.P. further submitted that disputed questions of facts are involved which need examination and cross-examination and cannot be adjudicated in a summary trial by the redressal agencies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
5. On merits, the averments of the complainant regarding the damage to car having taken place while saving a cyclist was disputed and further it was submitted that since it was a damage due to falling of a tree which fell due to storm and the risk of floods/storm and cyclone was not covered under the insurance policy, the claim was rightly repudiated by the respondent/O.P. The respondent/O.P. further submitted that the Surveyor conducted the survey to assess the cause of accident to enable the respondent/O.P. to ascertain the facts and decide if the same was covered under the insurance policy or not. Further, the respondent/O.P. submitted that the loss assessed by the Surveyor was at R
