Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.S. Madan, President, Dr. Rekha Sharma and Diwan Singh Chauhan, Members
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
SHAMMI KAPOOR - Respondent
First Appeal No. 1273 of 2010
Decided on : 13-09-2010
Mr. D.C. Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant; None., for the Respondent
In case of breach of policy conditions, the insurance company is liable to reimburse the insured for the loss suffered, and the claim should be settled on a non-standard basis.
Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - Breach of Policy Conditions - The court held that in case of breach of policy conditions, the claim should be settled on a non-standard basis. The insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft. The vehicle being used as a taxi in breach of the policy conditions does not absolve the insurance company from reimbursing the insured for the loss suffered.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's vehicle met with an accident while being used as a taxi instead of a private vehicle, leading to the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance company was liable to reimburse the insured for the loss suffered, as the breach of policy conditions did not absolve the company from settling the claim on a non-standard basis.
Issues: Breach of policy conditions, repudiation of claim, liability of the insurance company.
Ratio Decidendi: In case of breach of policy conditions, the claim should be settled on a non-standard basis. The insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no illegality or ambiguity in the impugned order of the District Forum.
ORDER
R.S. Madan, President - The brief facts of the present case not disputed between the parties are that the complainant Shammi Kapoor had got insured his Qualis vehicle bearing registration No. HR-39-A/3170 with the opposite party for the period 17.12.2006 to 16.12.2007. On 27.2.2007, the above said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident when it was on his way of Sunder Nagar. The complainant submitted the claim to the opposite party for the payment of Rs. 1,94,000 in respect of the above said vehicle but the same was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the complainant had used his vehicle for the purpose other than it was insured. By filing the present complaint, the complainant challenged the legality of the repudiation of his claim by taking the plea that his claim was illegally and wrongly repudiated by the opposite party.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and resisted the claim of the complainant while justifying the repudiation of complainant's claim. It was further pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, because immediately after receipt of the intimation, Surveyor was appointed, who has assessed the damages to the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 1,19,400 minus salvage value. But the complainant has plied his vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, claim was rightly repudiated.
3. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, as well as taking strength of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Amalendu Sahoo v. OIC, (2010) 2 CPJ 9 (SC), wherein it has been held that in case of violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the claim should be settled on non-standard basis. In this view of the matter, the District Forum has accepted the complaint vide order dated 9.7.2010 by issuing following direction to the opposite party:
"We allow this complaint and direct the respondent to pay Rs. 89,550 (75% of 1,19,400) to the complainant and further to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation and litigation expenses. Order of this Forum be complied within two months. If respondent fails to comply the order within stipulated period, then respondent will also pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of filing this complaint till its realization."
4. Aggrieved against the impugned order the opposite party has filed present appeal before this Commission.
5. We have gone through the impugned order and taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law relied upon by the District Forum in case titled Amalendu Sahoo (supra), ratio of which is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. We have further taken notice of the case laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relying upon its earlier two decisions in Jitendra Kumar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, (2003) 6 SCC 420 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297, held as under:
"13. In the case in hand, the vehicle has been snatched or stolen. In the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane. The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis. The Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft."
6. In the present case, the vehicle in question met with an accident when it was being used as a taxi instead of private vehicle. The vehicle was being used as a Taxi in breach of condition of the policy. The Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid judgment has held that in the case of breach of condition is not germane and the Insurance Company is liable to r
