Back
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
T.S.P. Moosath and Ranjit R, Members
PRAMEELA - Appellant
Versus
BRANCH MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE - Respondent
Appeal No. 584 of 2015, 585 of 2015
Decided on : 06-06-2018
Narayan R, Adv., Sreevaraham G Satheesh, Adv.
Headnote:
Insurance - Malicious Act - Section 1(7) of the policy - National Commission decision - Supreme Court decision - Violation of policy conditions - Non-standard claim - [MALICIOUS ACT] - [INSURANCE] - [Section 1(7) of the policy, National Commission decision, Supreme Court decision] - The court discussed the application of Section 1(7) of the policy, the interpretation of the National Commission decision, and the Supreme Court decision on non-standard claims due to violation of policy conditions. The court emphasized that breach of policy conditions does not necessarily disentitle the insured from seeking a claim under the insurance policy and directed the respondent/insurance company to pay 75% of the insured amount to both the vehicles with 6% interest from the date of filing the complaints before the District Forum.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's vehicle was insured and entrusted to a friend, who did not return it and pledged it with financiers. The insurance company repudiated the claim, citing violation of policy conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant's case fell within the purview of malicious act as per the policy, and the violation of policy conditions did not disentitle the insured from seeking a claim under the insurance policy.
Issues: Violation of policy conditions, entitlement to claim under the insurance policy
Ratio Decidendi: Breach of policy conditions does not necessarily disentitle the insured from seeking a claim under the insurance policy.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed in part, and the impugned orders of the district Forum were set aside. The respondent/insurance company was directed to pay 75% of the insured amount to both the vehicles with 6% interest from the date of filing the complaints before the District Forum. The appeals were disposed of in the above said terms. Parties must suffer their respective costs.
ORDER
Ranjit. R, Member - Challenge in these two appeals by the complainants in the complaint is two sets of Orders dated 25.6.2015 in CC.148/11 and 149/11 respectively of CDRF, Kollam (for short district Forum), by which the District Forum dismissed both the complaints. Since the afore noted complaints involved similar facts, common issues involved in, and that district Forum decided the aforesaid impugned Order on identical lines, these appeals are being disposed of by the common Order.
However, for the sake of convenience First Appeal 584/15 is treated as the leading case and the facts referred to hereinafter are also taken from the said appeal.
2. Briefly put the facts relevant for the disposal of the appeals are that:- The complainant is the owner of the Innova car insured with the opposite party for the period between 23.6.2008 and 22.6.2009. On 2.7.2008 one family friend of complainant's husband named Fazil requested the complainant and her husband to give the Innova car for short personal visit to Kannur and that the same will be returned within two weeks. But the vehicle was not returned. They could not find any whereabouts of Fazil or the said car. Hence FIR was lodged in Kallambalam Police station against Fazil. After investigation the police filed a UN report stating that neither vehicle, nor Fazil could be traced. Hence matter was informed the opposite party along with the report of the police. The opposite party assured to settle the claim but there was no information for long time. On 30.11.2010 opposite party informed the complainant over phone that claim is repudiated. Hence the complainant filed the complaint for getting insurance amount together with compensation and cost. Opposite party resisted the complaint, filing version contending that the case of the complainant that the loss of the vehicle cannot be treated as theft. The vehicle was lost due to cheating and breach of trust, there is no theft. The complainant is engaged in 'rent a car' business. The said Fazil had pledged the car with some financiers and criminal cases are pending against Fazil for breach of trust and cheating. The complainant has given a private car for rent and violated policy condition. The company can indemnify only if there is case of theft. Here there is no incident of theft. She has no cause of action to institute the complaint and hence the complaint to be dismissed with cost. Husband of the complainant had filed similar complaint ie CC.149/11 before the Forum and Forum dismissed the complaint on the very same grounds.
3. Initially the opposite party in both the complaints filed petition before the Forum praying to consider the question regarding maintainability of the complaint on the ground that there is no theft at all for making any claim against the insurance company and so there is no matter of cause of action arose against the opposite party. The lower Forum had found that no offence of theft is made out in the complaint and so the complainant has no cause of action to file a complaint against opposite party, for the insured peril under the policy and held that complaint is not maintainable. Aggrieved by this, the complainants had filed a Revision Petition No.343/13 and Revision Petition No.344/13, before this Commission and this commission had allowed both the Revisions and directed the District Forum to consider the case as one falling under malicious act covered by the policy and to consider the case on merit.
4. The district Forum, as per the direction of this commission consider the matter afresh.
5. Evidence in both the complaints consisted of the testimony of the complainants as PW1 and Exts.P1 and P2 marked, on the side of the complainants. Exts.D1 to D3 were marked on the side of the opposite party. Forum below appreciating the oral evidence and documents concluded that complainant has violated policy conditions in use of the vehicle at the time of loss and that complainant has no cause of action to file such a comp
