Back
2011(4) CPR 513 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
Anupam Dasgupta, Presiding Member
S.G. Shivamurtheppa —Petitioner
versus
Reliance General Insurance
Co. Ltd. — Respondent
Revision Petition No. 3176 of 2011
Decided on 28.11.2011
For the Petitioner:Mrs. K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya & Mr. Ashwin V. Kotemath, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Claim can be repudiated where there is explicit and admitted violation of one of conditions of insurance policy.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Damage to motor vehicle in accident—Repudiation of insurance claim on ground of overloading—State Commission set aside order passed by District Forum by which District Forum partly allowed complaint—Petitioner did not dispute that motor vehicle was registered for carriage of passengers not exceeding to 12 including driver and at the time of accident vehicle was instead carrying 16 persons—There was explicit and admitted violation of one of conditions of insurance policy—Impugned order of State Commission substantively valid to the extent it has set aside order of District Forum allowing insurance claim of petitioner/complainant and dismissed complaint. (Paras 2 to 5)
Anupam Dasgupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition challenges the order dated 17.03.2011 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in appeal no. 2925 of 2010. By this order, the State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondent/opposite party (OP) Insurance Company and set aside the order dated 11.06.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bellary (in short, ‘the District Forum’) by which the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant. By its letter dated 07.10.2009, the respondent Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the petitioner/complainant for indemnification of the loss due to damage of his motor vehicle which met with an accident on 27.04.2009. The ground cited by the respondent for repudiation of the claim was as under:
“The said goods carrying vehicle was registered for twelve in all seating capacity. It has been gathered and also confirmed in the police complaint that at the time of accident there eighteen people travelling in the above-mentioned vehicle. This exceeds the seating capacity of the vehicle and is a violation of limitation to use clause (pl. refer no. 3 of the said clause), which states that:
“The policy does not cover:
Use for carrying passengers in the vehicles; except employees (other than the driver) not exceeding the number permitted in the registration document and coming under the purview of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923”.
3. Moreover, during the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that the motor vehicle was registered for carriage of passengers not exceeding to 12 (including the driver) and at the time of accident the vehicle was instead carrying 16 persons. Therefore, there was an explicit and admitted violation of one of the conditions of the insurance policy as rightly pointed out in the letter of repudiation of the claim issued by the Insurance Company.
4. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order of the State Commission is substantively valid to the extent it has set aside the order of the District Forum allowing the insurance claim of the petitioner/complainant and dismissed the complaint.
5. The revision petition, is therefore, dismissed with no order as to cost.
Revision petition dismissed.
********
