Back
WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya and Mr. Jagannath Bag, Members
MONJAY DAS - Appellant
Versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS - Respondents
S.C. case No. FA/761 of 2012
Decided on : 13-01-2014
Mr. Ratan Banik, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Debasis Bhandari, Advocate. and Mr. Prasanta Banerjee, Advocate, for the Respondent
The central legal point established in the judgment is that evidence of the vehicle being used for hire and reward can justify the repudiation of an insurance claim based on the violation of the Insurance Policy terms and conditions.
Headnote:
Insurance Claim - Vehicle Insurance - Private Car Package Policy - Sections 392/34, I.P.C. - General exception No. 3(a) of the Private Car Package Policy - Condition No. 4 of the said Policy - 2002 WBLR 803 (CPSC) - I (2010) CPJ 167 (NC) - 2012 (4) CPR 196 (NC)
Fact of the Case:
The Complainant's vehicle was stolen and the insurance claim was repudiated on the ground of the vehicle being used for commercial purposes. The Complainant alleged unfair trade practice or deficiency in service by the insurance company.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was evidence of the vehicle being used for hire and reward, which violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The court upheld the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company.
Issues: The main issue was whether the insurance claim was rightfully repudiated based on the vehicle's use for commercial purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of the vehicle being used for hire and reward, which was a clear violation of the Insurance Policy terms and conditions. The court also emphasized that the police case ended in F.R.T. under Sections 392/34, I.P.C., which is distinct from theft.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment was affirmed.
ORDER
Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member -Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.8.2012, delivered by the learned District Forum, Siliguri, in Case No. 64/S/2011, the Complainant thereof has preferred this appeal. By the impugned judgment, the learned District Forum has dismissed the case on contest, but without cost.
2. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased one Chevrolet Travera Motor Vehicle on 8.9.2005, which was insured with the OP No. 2 for a sum assured of Rs. 6,10,000 (Rupees six lakh ten thousand) for the period from 31.12.2006 to 30.12.2007, vide Policy No. 313207/31/2007/3831 and the vehicle was hypothecated to the OP No. 3. While the Complainant was on tour in the North-East with his said vehicle and Driver, and returning from Senapati, Manipur after visiting his friend, they reached a Petrol Pump, namely, Faithful Services, 5th Mile, Dimapur, Nagaland, at about 1.40 a.m. on 6.4.2007 for taking petrol. At that time, three unknown persons came there on a Scooter and suddenly started beating them mercilessly and they forcibly snatched the key of the vehicle from the Driver and ran away with the vehicle along with the relevant papers of the vehicle and cash of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) in a handbag, for which he lodged an F.I.R., being No. 31/07, under Section 392/34, I.P.C., under G.D.E. No. 76/07 dated 6.4.2007, which ultimately ended in a Final Report, being No. 22/07, which was accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Dimapur, Nagaland. On return to Siliguri, he immediately informed the matter to the OP No. 2 by a letter dated 10.4.2007 with copy to the A.R.T.O., Siliguri, and also the OP No. 3 by a letter dated 16.4.2007. But, finally, to his utter surprise, he received a letter dated 4.2.2010 from the OP No. 2 informing that his claim is repudiated on the ground of his vehicle being used for commercial purposes. Being aggrieved, he served legal notice to the OP No. 2 through his Lawyer, Mr. Ratan Banik. Such denial of the insurance claim by the OP No. 2 amounts to unfair trade practice or deficiency in service of OP Nos. 1 and 2. As such, the case.
3. On the other hand, the case of the OP Nos. 1 and 2 is that the OP No. 2 appointed an independent I.R.D.A. approved and licensed Surveyor, Mr. Arabinda Prasad Maitra of Siliguri, who collected the information that the vehicle was being used for carrying passengers from the vehicle parking place near Hotel Manila, Hill Cart Road, Pradhan Nagar, Siliguri. He called for suitable clarification and submission of relevant records from the Complainant by a letter dated 28.4.2007, and also requested separately to disclose the proper address of the persons who were conveyed to Senapati, Manipur prior to the incident. But, he did not comply the same. It was gathered by the said Surveyor/Investigator that one Mr. Hegin Kipgen and his associate member of Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Senapati, Manipur came on official works in Darjeeling District and arrived at Siliguri from Kalimpong and stayed in Hotel Manila, Siliguri and they hired the concerned vehicle from the parking place near Hotel Manila and left for Manipur with a load of huge nursery seedling and after unloading the same, the Complainant collected scheduled fare of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand) and left for Siliguri on the same night. As the concerned vehicle was engaged and used for hire and reward purpose, the concerned vehicle was "being used otherwise than in accordance with the limitation as to use", under general exception No. 3(a) of the Private Car Package Policy, and condition No. 4 of the said Policy also specifically speaks that "the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the motor car from loss", for which the OP Nos. 1 and 2 are not legally liable to pay any compensation to the Complainant. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. It is to be considered if the impugned judgment suffers from any kind of anomaly so as to reverse the same.
Decisi
