Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Ajit Bharihoke, P.M and Rekha Gupta, Member
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
SANJAY BHAGWAR MALWADE - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 189 of 2013 from Order dated 5.10.2012 in Appeal No. 999 of 2008 of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Aurangabad.
Decided on : 14-05-2015
S.M. Tripathi, Advocate, for the Appellant; Preshit Surshe, Advocate, for the Respondent
Violation of insurance policy terms and use of the vehicle for hire and reward led to the rejection of the insurance claim.
Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - 2008 (3) ALL MR 875 (SC), 2007 (1) CPR 230 (NC), 2002 (1) CPR 574
Fact of the Case:
The respondent's vehicle was stolen, and the insurance company rejected the claim, alleging that the vehicle was being used for hire and reward, in violation of the insurance policy.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum and the State Commission found in favor of the respondent, granting compensation based on non-standard basis and interest on the claim amount.
Issues: Violation of insurance policy terms, use of the vehicle for hire and reward, negligence of the driver, and interpretation of insurance contract clauses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the vehicle was being used for hire and reward, in violation of the insurance policy, and the driver's negligence contributed to the theft. The court also interpreted the insurance contract clauses and applied relevant case law.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, the orders of the lower Fora were set aside, and the complaint was dismissed.
ORDER
Rekha Gupta, Member. - Revision Petition No. 189 of 2013 has been filed against the order dated 5.10.2012 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad ('the State Commission') in Appeal No. 999 of 2008.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the respondent/complainant are that the respondent obtained the insurance of Travera bearing No. MH 15 BN 7955 from the office of the petitioner/opposite party at Nasik. The validity period of the insurance policy of the said vehicle was 29.12.2006 to 28.12.2007. The respondent purchased the said vehicle Travera bearing No. MH 15 BN 7955 by way of a loan from the Andhra Bank. Ms Rekha Vaidya was the guarantor to the loan availed by the respondent. The said Ms Rekha Vaidya demanded the vehicle from the respondent for her personal work and, therefore, the respondent sent the aforesaid vehicle to her. At that time, Shri Sikander Roshan Deshmukh was the driver who was driving the above referred vehicle. Ms Rekha Vaidya, informed that one person sat in the vehicle and thereafter the driver picked up two persons on the street. When the driver took the vehicle to Santacruz area, Mumbai, the driver stopped the vehicle in front of a medical store for purchase of some medicine, at that time the people sitting inside the vehicle fled away with the vehicle and thus the vehicle was stolen by the said people. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged with the Santacruz police station. The police investigated the matter and extensively searched for the vehicle, but the said vehicle could not be found. After the vehicle was stolen, the respondent sent claim intimation letter to the petitioner Insurance Company as also the respondent complied with the documents requisitioned by the petitioner. The petitioner vide its letter dated 13.12.2007 rejected the claim of the respondent. Thus, there is serious deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner Insurance Company in respect of the respondent. The said conduct of the petitioner Insurance Company was illegal and the same amounts to breach of terms and conditions of the policy. The respondent therefore, filed the present application in order to get the compensation for the damages sustained by him due to the theft of his vehicle.
3. Therefore, it was prayed that:
(a) The respondent be paid Rs. 7,20,000/- by the petitioner - Insurance Company;
(b) The respondent be paid the interest @ 16% on the claim amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- from February, 2007 till the receipt of the final payment;
(c) Cost of the application be provided to the respondent by the petitioner; and
(d) Any other reliefs as in the nature and circumstances of the case may require be granted.
4. In their reply before the District Forum, the petitioner/opposite party admitted that the respondent had obtained insurance cover for his vehicle for a period from 29.12.2006 to 28.12.2007. At the time of obtaining the insurance cover the respondent has declared the value of the vehicle at Rs. 6,93,533/- and paid necessary premium for the same.
5. The respondent vide letter dated 21.2.2007 had informed the petitioner about the theft of his vehicle on 21.1.2007. Immediately, on receipt of the intimation by its letter dated 22.2.2007 the petitioner had called upon the respondent to submit the required documents. Later on, the respondent submitted the motor claim form, police papers including complaint panchanama and vehicular documents to the Insurance Company. Subsequently, he submitted the certificate dated 19.6.2007 issued by the Senior Police Inspector of Santacruz Police Station to the effect that the vehicle and the accused had not been traced.
6. On receipt of all the relevant papers, while processing the claim it was revealed that the complaint in respect of the incident was lodged by driver Mr. Sikander Roshan Deshmukh himself. It was also revealed that the vehicle was called up by one Ms. Rekha Vaidya, Proprietor, Saburi Travels on 21.1.2007 to
