Back
MAHARASTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S.B. Mhase, President and Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
PRAKASH SOPAN WAGHMARE - Respondent
First Appeal No. A/09 of 1311
Decided on : 14-07-2010
Mr. R.P. Baphna, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. R.G. Kadam, Advocate, for the Respondent
The violation of insurance policy terms and conditions and the legislative certificate led to the allowance of the appeal and the quashing of the previous order.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Insurance Claim - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21, Section 24, Section 27] - The court discussed the violation of insurance policy terms and conditions, specifically the use of the vehicle for hire or reward, and the legislative certificate. The court highlighted the importance of evidence and affidavits in proving the non-violation of policy terms. The decision was influenced by the clear violation of the insurance policy and legislative certificate, leading to the allowance of the appeal and quashing of the previous order.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant appealed against an order by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which directed the Insurance Company to pay a specific amount to the complainant for an insurance claim related to a vehicle accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance claim was rightly repudiated by the Insurance Company due to the violation of the insurance policy terms and conditions, specifically the use of the vehicle for hire or reward, and the legislative certificate.
Issues: Violation of insurance policy terms and conditions, repudiation of the insurance claim, and the sustainability of the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
Ratio Decidendi: The violation of insurance policy terms and conditions, as well as the legislative certificate, led to the court's decision to allow the appeal and quash the previous order.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the previous order was quashed, and there was no order as to cost. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company at the time of filing the appeal was to be returned to the appellant.
ORDER
S.B. Mhase, President - This appeal can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
2. There is delay application filed on record to condone the delay of 46 days. However, the delay has been as stating that it is caused due to administrative grounds. Though the respondent has very vehemently opposed, we are in favour of condoning the same. We find that delay has been properly explained by the appellant. Therefore, we condone the delay.
3. This appeal takes an exception to an order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solpaur in consumer complaint No. 131/2009 decided on 3.8.2009. The appellant is an original opponent while respondent is a original complainant.
4. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by the said order has directed the Insurance Company/appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 1,06,776 with interest @ 9% p.a. from 28.9.2007. Said amount is directed to be paid within period of 30 days. Towards the cost Rs. 1,000 has been granted by District Consumer Redressal Forum.
5. Admitted facts are as follows:
6. That the respondent/complainant is owner of Tempo track bearing No. MH13/AC/0198. Said vehicle was insured with the appellant/opponent/Insurance Company for period from 2.11.2005 to 1.11.2006. Said vehicle met with an accident on 3.6.2006. Surveyor has carried out a survey and it is found that vehicle has suffered damage up to Rs. 1,06,776. Since the said amount was not paid, complaint was filed in the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Solapur.
7. Insurance Company has repudiated the claim on a ground that said vehicle was used by the respondent/complainant contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. According to them, said vehicle was a private vehicle which could not have been used for hire and reward. It is to be noted that in the insurance policy there is a limitation clause which states that, "The policy covers use of the vehicle for any purpose other than
"(a) Hire or reward.
(b) Carriage of goods (other than samples or personal luggage)
(c) Organized racing
(d) Pace making.
(e) Speed testing and reliability trials.
(f) Use in connection with motor trade."
8. Therefore as per terms and conditions of the policy, vehicle cannot be used for hire and reward. Therefore, we have to find out that as to whether said vehicle was used for hire or reward. Learned Counsel invited our attention to the first information report. In the first information report lodged by the Police Sub-Inspector/Mr. Dhawale, it is stated that on the basis of information given by witness-Shri Hanmant Jagnnath Phate and Dnyaneshwar Sambhaji Bagal that said vehicle was taken on rental by the passengers in the vehicle from complainant. After taking said vehicle on rent 10+1 persons had visited Pune to see a patient in Ruby Hall Hospital. Thereafter, they visited Village Alandi and Dehu and while returning back, the vehicle had met with an accident at 11.45 p.m. . Three persons died in the said accident. It is further to be noted that statement of Shri Hanmant J. Phate is on record and said witness had stated that on 3.6.2006, he and Dnyaneshwar Sambhaji Bagal, etc. 9-10 persons hired the vehicle on rent from Pandharpur to visit the patinent/ Rambhau Bagal, who was admitted at Ruby Hall Hospital, Pune and thereafter, they came to Pune. After having seen the patient, they have visited Dehu, Alandi and started journey to Pune. On the way of return, the vehicle met with an accident. There is statement of Mr. Dnyaneshwar Sambhaji Bagal recorded by the police wherein he has stated that the said vehicle was on hire basis to go to Pune. Investigation paper shows that vehicle has been taken on hire basis. They have visited Pune and while returning back the vehicle met with an accident. This material is placed on record of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Though it is well settled rule in criminal trial that the statement recorded by the police is not admissible, however, these statements can be the material
