Back
CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Agrawal, President;
Mrs. Veena Misra & Mr. R.S. Awasthi, Members
DIGVIJAY SINGH CHOUHAN—Appellant
versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal No. 404 of 2004—Decided on 2.6.2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. P.K. Paul, Advocate.
When the duration of the insurance policy is over, the benefit cannot be availed of by the insured.
Headnote:
Insurance - Car Insurance - The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint by the District Forum, holding that the accident occurred after the expiry of the insurance policy, and the insurer's repudiation of the claim was justified. The court also cited the legal principle that when the duration of the policy is over, the benefit cannot be availed of by the insured.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's car met with an accident after the expiry of the insurance policy, and the insurer repudiated the claim on the grounds that the policy had expired.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident occurred after the expiry of the insurance policy, and the insurer's repudiation of the claim was justified. The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint by the District Forum.
Issues: The main issue was whether the insurance policy was in force at the time of the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principle that when the duration of the policy is over, the benefit cannot be availed of by the insured.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was affirmed. The complainant was given the liberty to avail of any other legal remedy available to him.
Mr. Justice V.K. Agrawal, President—This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 13.8.2004 in Complaint No. 95/2003 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the ‘District Forum’ for short) dismissing the appellant’s complaint.
2. The relevant facts stated in brief are, that the complainant is the owner of Indica car bearing Registration No. C.G. - 05 - 0545. The same was insured with the respondent/insurer covering the risks from 1.30 p.m. of 15.2.2001 to mid night of 14.2.2002. According to the complainant, the car met with an accident somewhere between 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on 14.2.2002 resulting in the death of 2 occupants, while the car was also damaged. The complainant preferred the claim with the respondent/insurer which, however, was repudiated by the respondent/insurer by their letter dated 6.11.2002 inter alia on the ground that the period of policy had expired. The complainant averred that his claim was repudiated without any basis and on mere guess and surmise. Therefore, he claimed that compensation of Rs. 4,33,000/- be awarded.
3. The complaint was resisted by the respondents. According to them, the policy expired on the mid-night of 14.2.2002, hence the term of policy had expired, and was not in force, when the accident occurred at 00.30 a.m. of 15.2.2002. According to the respondent/insurer the claim of the complainant was, therefore, justifiably repudiated.
4. The learned Counsel for the parties were heard. Record perused.
5. In view of the controversy as above, the main question that arises for consideration is as to whether the policy was in force at the time of accident?
6. In the above context, it may be mentioned that according to the letter of repudiation dated 6.11.2002 marked as Annexure -19, in the complaint case, it has been stated that the date and time of accident was after mid night, at about 00.30 a.m. of 15.2.2002, while the policy expired on the mid-night i.e., 12.00 a.m. on 14.2.2002 and, therefore, the said policy was not in force, at the time of accident.
7. However, as per the complainant’s version, the accident possibly occurred between 10 to 11. p.m. on 14.2.2002 i.e., while the policy was in force. In view of the dispute as above, it has to be considered as to on what date and time the accident occurred?
8. It may be noticed that the copy of the First Information Report of the accident has been placed on record, which shows that the accident occurred on 15.2.2002 at 00.30 a.m. The copies of other documents from the case diary are also to the above effect. In view of the above, it appears that prima facie, the accident occurred after 12.00 p.m. on 14.2.2002.
9. It may also be noticed that the complainant has not produced any document to show that the accident actually occurred before 12.00 p.m. of 14.2.2002 i.e., before the expiry of the policy. The material on record on the above aspect has been discussed in detail by the District Forum in the impugned order, and after consideration thereof it has recorded the finding that the accident occurred after the expiry of the terms of policy i.e., after the mid night of 14.2.2002. In view of the material available on record, especially the FIR and other documents in the case diary, we find that the said finding is justified, and there appears to be no reason for interference therewith.
10. It may be noticed that the Supreme Court in J. Kalaivani and Others v. K. Sivashankar and Another, 2002 ACJ 613, had laid down that in case duration of the policy is over, and the term of the policy expired, benefit thereunder cannot be availed of by the insured. The ratio of the said decision clearly goes to support the case of the respondent insurer; as in the instant case also, the terms of the insurance policy had already expired, when the accident took place.
11. Accordingly, the findings as above, of the District Forum are justified. It may be clarified that we are only
