Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sunil Kumar Garg, President and Vimla Sethiya, Member
KALU SINGH - Appellant
Versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. AND ANR. - Respondents
Appeal No. 1238 of 2008
Decided on : 05-06-2009
Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Amar Nath Pareek, Advocate, for the Respondent
The proximate cause of an accident should be considered when determining the justification for repudiating an insurance claim.
Headnote:
Insurance - Car Insurance Claim - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 147] - The court discussed the breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the cause of the accident, and the justification for repudiating the claim. It highlighted that the placement of the gas kit in the car, although a breach, was not the proximate cause of the accident, and therefore, the claim should not have been entirely repudiated.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's car was damaged in an accident caused by a truck. The insurance company repudiated the claim due to the complainant fitting an LPG kit in the car without permission.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the placement of the gas kit in the car was not the proximate cause of the accident, and thus, the repudiation of the claim was not justified. The complainant was entitled to 75% of the assessed loss with interest and costs.
Issues: Breach of insurance policy terms, proximate cause of the accident, justification for repudiating the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The placement of the gas kit in the car, although a breach of the policy, was not the proximate cause of the accident, and therefore, the claim should not have been entirely repudiated.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the insurance company was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 41,074 to the complainant with interest and costs.
ORDER
1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant against the order dated 12.6.2008 passed by the District Forum, Banswara in Complaint No. 19/07 by which the complaint of the complainant appellant was dismissed.
2. It arises in the following circumstances:
That the complainant appellant had filed a complaint against the respondents Insurance Company before the District Forum, Banswara on 28.3.2007 inter alia stating that his Maruti Alto LX car bearing No. RJ.03/C-2078 was got insured with the respondents Insurance Company for the period 1.6.2006 to 31.5.2007 for a sum of Rs. 1,46,000 as IDV. It was further stated in the complaint that on 30.6.2006 when the said vehicle was coming from Ahmedabad to Banswara, a truck from the opposite direction had suddenly come and caused accident with the Maruti car of the complainant appellant, as a result of which the Maruti car was damaged and assessment of the damage was to the tune of Rs. 1,43,742, for which a claim was preferred by the complainant appellant before the office of the respondents Insurance Company, but that claim was repudiated by the respondents Insurance Company through letter dated 30.11.2006 in the following manner:
"With reference to the above you are hereby informed that claim of above vehicle which met with accident on 22.7.2006 is repudiated because you have fitted LPG kit in the car without permission of RTO and no premium was charged on the LPG fitting.
Hence claim is repudiated."
Thereafter the present complaint was filed.
3. A reply was filed by the respondents Insurance Company on 6.12.2007 and in the reply they have taken the same pleas which were taken in the repudiation letter dated 30.11.2006 and the case of the respondents was that since the complainant appellant had fitted LPG kit in his car against the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, on account of the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, the claim was not payable and thus the claim was rightly repudiated and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed though the Surveyor appointed by the respondents Insurance Company Shri A.K.Deedwania in his report dated 28.7.2006 had assessed the loss for the damage of the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 54,765.
Note: That the manner in which the accident was caused as stated above has even been admitted by the Surveyor in his report dated 28.7.2006 meaning thereby the accident was caused by the truck coming from opposite side.
4. The District Forum after hearing both the parties, through the impugned order dated 12.6.08 had dismissed the complaint as stated above, inter alia holding that since the gas kit was fitted in the car against the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, on account of breach of the terms and conditions of the policy,claim was rightly repudiated.
5. Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant.
6. In this appeal, the main contention of the learned Counsel for the complainant appellant is that no doubt, at the time of accident, there was a gas kit fitted in the car, but the cause of the accident was not that as the accident was caused by a truck coming from the opposite direction by which the car of the complainant appellant was damaged. Thus the proximate cause of the accident was the truck which was coming from the opposite direction and, therefore, the repudiation of the claim on the grounds mentioned in the repudiation letter dated 30.11.2006 was not justified and appeal be allowed.
7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents Insurance Company has supported the impugned order.
8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. It may be stated here that in this case, there is no dispute on the point that the accident had taken place by a truck coming from the opposite direction which has hit the car of the complainant appellant as a result of which the car was damaged and when this being the poisition, the cause of the acciden
