Back
ORISSA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CUTTACK
Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Patnaik, President; Dr. Arati Mohanty &
Mr. Pramodnath Das, Members
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.—Appellant
versus
ANANDA KUMAR AGRAWALA—Respondent
C.D. Appeal No. 635 of 1995—Decided on 31.10.2003
For the Appellant :Mr. P. Roy, Mr. S. Roy, Mr. D.P. Thattaraj and Mr. Adam Ali Khan, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. B.K. Mall, Mr. P.C. Patnaik and Mr. N. Lenka, Advocates.
The court emphasized that the insurance company's repudiation of the claim must be based on valid grounds and not arbitrary or whimsical reasons.
Headnote:
Insurance Claim - Vehicle Insurance - The court found that the insurance company's repudiation of the claim on the ground of carrying passengers at the material time was arbitrary and whimsical. The court ordered the insurance company to pay the complainant the amount spent on repair and compensation for mental agony.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's vehicle, comprehensively insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., met with an accident while returning from a delivery. The insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle was carrying passengers at the material time, which violated the policy conditions and the Motor Vehicles Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company to be arbitrary and ordered the insurance company to pay the complainant the amount spent on repair and compensation for mental agony.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the insurance claim, the violation of policy conditions and the Motor Vehicles Act, and the arbitrary nature of the insurance company's repudiation of the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company's repudiation of the claim on the ground of carrying passengers at the material time was arbitrary and whimsical. The court ordered the insurance company to pay the complainant the amount spent on repair and compensation for mental agony.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the insurance company was ordered to pay the complainant Rs. 31,000 for the repair costs and Rs. 500 for compensation and mental agony.
Dr. Arati Mohanty, Member—The Insurance Company is in appeal.
The case of the complainant is the repudiation of claim by the Insurance Company on the ground of violation of terms of insurance policy was arbitrary and whimsical. The mini truck of the complainant bearing Regn. No. OR-15-A 2271 was comprehensively insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. This insurance was valid up to 6.8.1994. It met with an accident on 12.6.1994 while coming back from Talcher after delivery of goods at Talcher, sent from Katapali, Sambalpur.
2. On 12.6.1994 the vehicle carried steel furniture of Sanjay Udyog of Katapalli, Dist-Sambalpur to Talcher of Dist. Angul. After unloading the goods at destination the vehicle was returning back on the next day. It was empty near village Ambapal, a group of persons stopped the vehicle forcibly and compelled the driver to carry them in the truck to Sambalpur. They had with them musical instruments. According to them they were coming to Sambalpur to participate in Sithal Sasthi Festival. The driver protested, but assaulted, was compelled to take all persons.
3. On the way, the vehicle met with an accident and was damaged and some of the passengers were injured. The matter was reported to the Insurance Company on 14.6.1995. One Surveyor was deputed to inspect the vehicle at the spot. Thereafter the vehicle was towed to Sambalpur and repaired at Ramesh Garrage. Another Surveyor was deputed to inspect the vehicle and to assess the loss. He made an agreement with the complainant for Rs. 22,000/- for the cost of the parts to be replaced and also for labour charges. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was deducted towards depreciation and cost of salvages. The balance amount of Rs. 17,000/- was to be paid to the complainant.
4. New parts of Rs. 10,000/- were purchased and all the cash memos of Rs. 21,000/- were submitted towards labour charges but the insurer repudiated the Claim No. 13/17.4.1995 on the ground that the vehicle was carrying passenger at the material time which violated the condition of the permit and provision of M.V. Act.
5. District Forum’s view is that the complainant should not be penalised for the mischievous action of the others on the way while the vehicle was returning to Angul without carrying any passenger or goods. The learned Counsel for Insurance Company cited some decisions reported in 1994 (1) TAC 139, Soumandra Singh v. Hayat Khan. The learned Counsel has also cited decisions reported in I (1987) ACC 413 (SC)=1987 ACJ 411, Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandra Hadawaed and Others.
6. The accident took place on 12.6.1994. He informed the Insurance Company on 14.6.1996 and the Insurance Company deputed the Surveyor to inspect the vehicle at the spot. Final Surveyor was also deputed by Insurance Company and also assessed the loss but after such a long time the Insurance Company without accepting the report of final Surveyor or without considering the bills and cash memos of the complainant stated that the vehicle was carrying passengers at the material time which violated the policy conditions and M.V. Act. Further travelling of owners on goods vehicle is not a violation of M.V. Act as per Section 147 of Amended M.V. Act, 1994.
We do not find any infirmity in order of the District Forum. Except instead of quantifying the loss, if asked the Insurance Company to settle the loss. Therefore, we for ourselves on going through the materials on record find the complainant to have spent Rs. 31,000/- for repair including purchase of spare parts, labour, etc. Hence, in our considered opinion, we order that the Insurance Company (appellant) to pay Rs. 31,000/- (Rupees thirty-one thousand) only which have been spent by the complainant towards cost of purchase of spares and cost of repair and Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) towards cost for compensation and mental agony, within two months from the receipt of this order.
Appeal is dismissed.
D.M. Patnaik, President—I agree.
Pramod Nath Das, Member—I a
