Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. Thakur, C.J.I. and V. Gopala Gowda, J.
Lakhmi Chand —Appellant
versus
Reliance General Insurance —Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos.49-50 of 2016 (Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos.37534-37535 of 2013)
Decided on 7.1.2016
IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance company must not only establish defence claimed in proceeding concerned but also establish breach on part of owner/insured of vehicle for which burden of proof would rest with insurance company.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 23—Insurance—Damage to vehicle in accident— Accident of vehicle of appellant was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle—Insurance company, in order to avoid liability must not only establish defence claimed in proceeding concerned but also establish breach on part of owner/insured of vehicle for which burden of proof would rest with insurance company—Respondent-Company has not produced any evidence on record to prove that accident occurred on account of overloading of passengers in goods carrying vehicle—Vehicle of appellant was badly damaged in accident—Surveyor assessed loss at Rs.90,000/-, but actual amount incurred by appellant on repair of his vehicle was Rs.1,64,033/-—Claim was arbitrarily rejected by respondent-Company on ground that damage caused to vehicle did not fall within scope and purview of insurance policy as there was a contravention of terms and conditions of policy of vehicle—Judgment of National Commission set aside and judgment of District Forum restored—Appeals allowed with cost of Rs.25,000. (Paras 14 to 19)
Result: Appeals allowed.
V. Gopala Gowda, J.—Leave granted.
2. The present appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2013 in Revision Petition No. 2032 of 2012 and order dated 23.07.2013 in Review Petition No. 253 of 2013 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “National Commission”), whereby the petitions challenging the order dated 29.02.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission were dismissed.
3. The brief facts of the case which are required to appreciate the rival legal contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties are stated in brief as hereunder:-
4. The appellant was the owner of a Tata Motors goods carrying vehicle bearing registration No.HR-67-7492. The vehicle was insured with the respondent-Company vide policy No. 15019923334104992 with effect from 31.07.2009, valid upto 30.07.2010. The risk covered in this policy was to the tune of Rs.2,21,153/-. The said vehicle met with an accident on 11.02.2010 on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. UP-75-J 9860. In this regard, an FIR No.66 of 2010 dated 11.02.2010 was registered with the jurisdictional Police Station, Sadar, Fatehabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”).
5. The appellant incurred expenses amounting to Rs.1,64,033/- for the repair of his vehicle and also informed the respondent- Company about the accident and damage caused to his vehicle. In this connection, the respondent-Company appointed one Mr. Atam Prakash Chawla, as the Surveyor to assess the damage caused to the said vehicle. After inspecting the vehicle, the Surveyor assessed the damage caused to the vehicle at Rs.90,000/-, whereas the appellant had preferred a claim for a sum of Rs.1,64,033/- with supporting bills. In addition to above, the respondent-Company appointed M/s Innovation Auto Risk Claim Manager for the purpose of investigation. According to the report of the investigator, five passengers were travelling in the goods-carrying vehicle, though the seating capacity of the vehicle as per the registration certificate was only 1+1. On the basis of findings of the said report, the respondent-Company vide letter dated 26.07.2010 rejected the claim of the appellant for the reason that the loss did not fall within the scope and purview of the insurance policy.
6. Aggrieved of the letter of rejection of the claim of the appellant by the respondent-Company, he filed Complaint No.517 of 2010 against the respondent- Company dated 17.09.2010 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the claim of Rs.1,64,033/- towards the repair of his vehicle on the ground that the rejection of the claim amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent- Company.
7. The respondent-Company filed a detailed written statement before the District Forum disputing the claim of the appellant. It took the plea that the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the policy, as five passengers were travelling in the goods-carrying vehicle at the time of accident, whereas the permitted seating capacity of the motor vehicle of the appellant was only 1+1.
8. The District Forum on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the materials on record considered the judgment of the National Commission in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pravinbhai D. Prajapati, IV 2010 CPJ 315 (NC) wherein it was held that if the number of persons travelling in the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have a bearing on the cause of accident, then the mere factum of the presence of more persons in the vehicle would not disentitle the insured claimant from claiming compensation under the policy towards the repair charges
