Back
GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sandra Vaz e Correia, Presiding Member and Caroline Collasso, Member
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
MARIA ESPERANCE FERNANDES - Respondent
Appeal No. 106 of 2007
Decided on : 16-04-2009
Mr. E. Afonso, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. V. Shirodkar and Mr. S. Mordekar, Advocates, for the Respondent
Insurance companies should settle non-standard claims instead of outright repudiating them, as per the decision in Skandia's case.
Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - Non-Standard Claim Settlement
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's vehicle was insured for a specific period but was later used for hire, leading to a loss. The insurance company repudiated the claim, citing violation of policy conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the vehicle was indeed used for hire at the time of loss, based on the driver's statement. However, the insurance company's outright repudiation was not justified, and the claim should have been settled on a non-standard basis.
Issues: Dispute over the usage of the insured vehicle and the insurance company's repudiation of the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the vehicle was used for hire, the insurance company should have settled the claim on a non-standard basis instead of outright repudiation, as per the decision in Skandia's case.
Final Decision: The court modified the original order and directed the insurance company to settle the claim on a non-standard basis at 75% of the assessed loss, maintaining the rate of interest and computation date. Each party was to bear their own costs.
ORDER
Mrs. Sandra Vaz e Correia, Presiding Member - The appellant is the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., they are aggrieved by the order dated 9.7.2007 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (District Forum), North Goa in Complaint No. 210/2000 where under they were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 to the complainant (respondent herein) along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 22.6.1998 till full payment.
2. This is a long pending dispute between the parties. The complainant purchased a vehicle Tempo Trax in the year 1996 initially used as a taxi but converted to a private vehicle after six months. The vehicle was insured with the opposite party for an amount of Rs. 3,37,000 for the period 16.7.1997 to 15.7.1998. The complainant's husband passed away on 26.2.1998; thereafter she engaged one Vijay Madhukar Naik to drive the vehicle as and when required. On 6.5.1998, she instructed the said driver to go to Belgaum with the vehicle to purchase spare parts for the Ambassador car belonging to her brother-in-law Bartolommeo Fernandes. The following day, she got a telephonic message that said Vijay while on his way to Belgaum was accosted by four persons who had hitched a ride in the vehicle and assaulted and tied with a nylon rope. The assailants decamped with the vehicle. Said Vijay's statement was recorded by the police on 7.5.1998 and a revised statement recorded on 31.8.1998.
3. The complainant raised a claim before the opposite party on 22.6.1998 along with RC book and keys of the vehicle. This was followed up with a reminder on 6.10.1999. However, the claim was repudiated by the opposite party by letter dated 4.1.2000 on the grounds that the vehicle was used for hire and as such violated the limitations of use. The complainant knocked the doors of the grievance cell of the opposite party, but was informed that the repudiation could not be reconsidered. This, succinctly, is the genesis of the dispute.
4. The opposite party defended its repudiation of the claim on the ground that the vehicle was used for hire or reward at the time of loss. They alleged that the driver Vijay Madhukar was engaged to use the vehicle for hire and placed strong reliance on the driver's statement to the police given on 7.5.1998. The driver had stated that he had taken the vehicle to the taxi-stand at Mandovi Hotel at which time four unknown persons engaged the vehicle to transport them to Mollem. The statement was altered 43 days later at the instance of the complainant.
5. The opposite party's defence however did not find favour with the District Forum who allowed the complaint with directions to pay the market value with interest.
6. Mr. E. Afonso assailed the impugned order and submitted that the District Forum had not appreciated the breach of policy condition and that acts of the servant bind the master. He further submitted that, at the most, the appellant's liability would be settlement of the claim on non-standard basis at 75% of the assessed loss of Rs. 2,50,000 and relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Munni Lal Yadav, 2001 (2) CPR 1 (NC). On the other hand, Mr. Vasudev Shirodkar argued in support of the impugned order.
7. There is merit in the contention of the opposite party. Vijay Madhukar Naik's statement was recorded at the Collem Police Station at 8.30 p.m. on 7.5.1998. He stated that on 6.5.1998, he took the vehicle to the taxi stand at Mandovi Hotel at which time he was approached by four persons who desired to engage the vehicle to take them to Mollem; the quoted charges of Rs. 700 were accepted. It is clear from this statement that the vehicle was used for hire at the time. The complainant realized about two months later that her driver had given a wrong statement and approached the police to have it altered. Obviously, it must have dawned on the complainant that her driver's statement would be fatal to her claim that had been filed with the opposite party at the time. The complainant cannot wash her hands from the acts of her dr
