Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sunil Kumar Garg, President and Vimla Sethia, Member
FIROZ KHAN - Appellant
Versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS. - Respondents
Appeal No. 1203 of 2008
Decided on : 19-08-2009
Mr. Anil Bhatiya, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Virendra Agarwal, Advocate, for the Respondent
In cases of misuse of a vehicle, the claim should be treated as sub-standard rather than being repudiated in toto.
Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 392, IPC - (2003) 1 CPJ 206 (NC) - The judgment discusses the violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the use of a private vehicle for commercial purposes, and the repudiation of the claim. It highlights the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the legal principle that in cases of misuse of a vehicle, the claim should be treated as sub-standard rather than being repudiated in toto.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's vehicle was insured as a private vehicle but was being used for commercial purposes at the time of theft. The insurance company repudiated the claim, stating a violation of the policy terms and conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the vehicle was indeed being used for commercial purposes at the time of theft, which violated the terms and conditions of the policy. However, it held that the claim should have been treated as sub-standard instead of being repudiated in toto.
Issues: The main issues were whether the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company was justified and how the violation of the policy terms and conditions should be addressed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases of misuse of a vehicle, the claim should be treated as sub-standard rather than being repudiated in toto. It cited the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the legal principle established in (2003) 1 CPJ 206 (NC) to support its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the insurance company was directed to pay the complainant 75% of the insured amount with interest and litigation costs.
ORDER
1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant-appellant against the order dated 21.4.2008 passed by the District Forum, Bhilwara in Complainant No. 138/98, by which the complaint of the complainant-appellant was dismissed.
2. It arises in the following circumstances:
That the complainant-appellant as well as respondent No. 3 both have filed a complaint against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 Insurance Company before the District Forum, Bhilwara on 6.5.1998 inter alia stating that a jeep bearing No. RJ.06C 1520 was got insured with respondent No.1 Insurance Company for the period 28.10.1995 to 27.10.1996 for a sum of Rs. 2,10,000 and it was further stated in the complaint that on 10.4.1996 that the driver of the complainant-appellant Shri Gopal had taken the jeep from the complainant-appellant for the purpose of getting the service and in the evening he did not return and on the next day he came and told the complainant-appellant that some miscreants had forcebly taken the jeep and thereafter a report was lodged with the Police Station, Masuda, District Ajmer on 11.4.1996 upon which F.l.R. No. 39/96 was registered and information of that incident was also given by the complainant-appellant to the office of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Insurance Company, but that claim was repudiated by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 through letter dated 26.2.1991 inter alia stating in the following manner:
"Your vehicle jeep No. RJ.06.C.1520 was insured in our company vide policy No. 31/1/4791/95-96 w.e.f. 28.10.1995 to 27.10.1996. On 11.4.1996 one Gopal son of Shri Raju Gurjar, r/o Banera,District Bhilwara lodged a FIR No. 39/96 under Section 392, IPC in Police Station, Masuda, Distt. Ajmer. As per contents of the FIR and investigation report it is established that at the time occurrence the vehicle was registered and insured as private vehicle, hence private car B policy was issued in your favour in which it was clearly mentioned that "Use only for social, domestic and pleasure purposes and for the insured's own business. The policy does not cover the use for hire or hired for organised racing, pace making, reliability trials, speed testing, the carriage of goods (other than samples) in connection with Motor Trade" and further it is clear that the valuation of the provision contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, l988.
So, we are sorry to inform you that your above claim is not maintainable as per policy conditions and therefore, the competent authority have repudiated the same."
Thereafter the present complaint was filed.
3 . A reply was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Insurance Company before the District Forum, Bhilwara on 17.11.1998 and in the reply they have taken the same pleas which were taken in the repudiation letter dated 26.2.1997 and it was further replied that the driver of the complainant-appellant had allowed some persons to be seated in the jeep after taking fare from them and they have taken the jeep, for that Insurance Company could not be held liable because of the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and it was prayed that the claim of the complainant-appellant was rightly repudiated and complaint be dismissed.
4. The District Forum after hearing both the parties, through the impugned order dated 21.4.2008 had dismissed the complaint as stated above, inter alia holding that since at the time of theft the vehicle though registered as a private vehicle, was being used for commercial purposes and since by that act the complainant appellant had violated the terms and conditons of the policy and, therefore, claim was rightly repudiated by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Insurance Company.
5. Aggrieved from that order, this appeal has been filed by the complainant-appellant.
In this appeal, the following two contentions have been raised by the learned Counsel for the complainant-appellant:
(i) that in case of theft the use of the vehicle is immaterial, therefore, repudiation of the claim by the Respondent Nos. l and 2 Insurance Compan
