Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member, Anup K Thakur, Member
National Insurance Co. Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Mata Naina Devi Ji Fuel Centre —Respondent
Revision Petition No.825 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 28/12/2015 in Appeal No.194/2015 of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh)
Decided on 12.5.2017
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Suman Thakur, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Unless petitioner is able to show that insurance claim falls within some exclusion or exception provided in terms and conditions, insurance company cannot evade its liability under insurance claim.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Carrier Legal Liability Insurance Policy—Damage to Tanker and loss of diesel oil in accident—Subject to terms and conditions of insurance policy, petitioner insurance company had agreed to indemnify insured against his legal liability for actual physical loss or damage to goods as a result of accident, provided insurance claim of insured is admitted under Motor Comprehensive Insurance Policy covering the vehicle—Insurance claim submitted by insured under motor comprehensive insurance policy of subject vehicle has been admitted and settled by petitioner company in Lok Adalat—Unless petitioner is able to show that insurance claim falls within some exclusion or exception provided in terms and conditions, insurance company cannot evade its liability under insurance claim—In absence of any cogent evidence to show that concerned driver was not authorized to drive transport vehicle carrying hazardous goods, no any infirmity in order of State Commission particularly when insurance company has settled insurance claim pertaining to damage caused to subject vehicle in accident—Revision petition dismissed.
Held: From the above, it would be seen that subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the petitioner insurance company had agreed to indemnify the insured against his legal liability for actual physical loss or damage to the goods as a result of accident, provided the insurance claim of the insured is admitted under the Motor Comprehensive Insurance Policy covering the vehicle. Admittedly, the insurance claim submitted by the insured under the motor comprehensive insurance policy of the subject vehicle has been admitted and settled by the petitioner company in Lok Adalat. Therefore, it is evident that unless the petitioner is able to show that insurance claim falls within some exclusion or exception provided in the terms and conditions, the insurance company cannot evade its liability under the insurance claim.
In order to succeed on this plea, the petitioner insurance company was required to show that the driving license of the concerned driver Dina Nath was not endorsed for authorizing to drive the vehicle carrying hazardous goods. Neither the copy of the driving license has been filed by the petitioner nor any certificate in this regard from the concerned authority has been filed. Instead, a photocopy of the extract of the driving license of Vir Singh purported to have been issued by the concerned Regional Transport Office has been filed. This document is not relevant for the subject dispute because it pertains to driving license of one Vir Singh son of Dalip Singh and not the concerned driver Dina Nath. In absence of any cogent evidence to show that the concerned driver Dina Nath was not authorized to drive the transport vehicle carrying hazardous goods, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the State Commission particularly when the insurance company has settled the insurance claim pertaining to the damage caused to the subject vehicle in the accident.
In view of the discussion above, we do not find any material irregularity or jurisdictional error which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (Paras 13, 17 and 18)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh dated 28.12.2015 in FA no. 194/2015.
2. The respondent complainant being owner of vehicle no. HR-19B-0475 purchased packaged goods carrying vehicle insurance policy qua the said tractor for the sum insured Rs.7,38,400/-. The policy was valid from 27.05.2006 till 26.05.2007.
3. The respondent complainant also purchased Carrier Legal Liability Insurance Policy for the said tanker for total sum insured Rs.4,00,000/-. The policy was valid from 30.01.2007 till 29.01.2008.
4. That on 05.032007 the subject vehicle carrying diesel while being driven by the driver Dina Nath met with an accident near Lalru District Patiala. Consequently, the tanker truck suffered damage and whole of the diesel loaded in the tanker spilled out of the tanker.
5. The respondent complainant filed two separate claims against the damage caused to the subject vehicle and in respect of loss of diesel as a result of accident. Both the claims were repudiated. The complainant, therefore, filed two separate complaints. The opposite party insurance company settled the claim pertaining to damage to the tanker in Lok Adalat for Rs.24,350/-.
6. As regards the claim for loss of diesel, the insurance company appointed one Sh. Gurvinder Singh, Surveyor to assess the loss under the Carriers Legal Liability Policy. The surveyor vide his report dated 29.06.2007 assessed the value of loss of diesel to the tune of Rs.2,41,831/-. The insurance company, however, vide repudiation letter dated 16.01.2012 repudiated the claim against the loss of diesel on the ground that at the time of accident, Dina Nath was not having valid driving license to drive the vehicle carrying hazardous goods, which is mandatory as per Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Being aggrieved of the repudiation of the claim, the respondent filed consumer complaint in District Forum Bilaspur praying for direction to the insurance company to indemnify the loss of diesel to the extent of Rs.2,93,290/- and also to pay compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- alongwith cost of litigation.
7. The petitioner insurance company on being served with notice of the complaint filed written statement denying any deficiency in service. It was pleaded that insurance claim was repudiated because Dina Nath was not having valid driving license with the endorsement authorizing him to drive the vehicle carrying hazardous goods.
8. The District Forum on consideration of pleadings and evidence vide its order dated 19.08.2015 dismissed the complaint. The respondent complainant being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 28.12.015 set aside the order of the District forum and allowed the appeal of the respondent by awarding insurance claim to the tune of Rs.2,41,831/- as assessed by the surveyor alongwith 9% interest from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 15.02.2012 till realization of amount. The State Commission observed that petitioner insurance company in respect of same accident had already paid the own damage claim of the subject truck. Therefore, there was no justification or logic in denying the claim pertaining to loss of diesel being carried in the insured truck / tanker.
9. Being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that impugned order of the State Commission has been passed in utter disregard of Rule 9 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 and terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is contended that State Commission has failed to appreciate that at the time of accident, the subject vehicle was carrying hazardous material i.e. diesel and that the driver of the vehicle Dina Nath was not having a proper driving license with an endorsement authorizing him to drive the subject vehic
