Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member and C. Viswanath, Member
Shiv Nath and Anr. —Petitioners
versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.1391 of 2012
(Against the Order dated 02/02/2012 in Appeal No.878/2009 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
Decided on 19.11.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Maibam N. Singh, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant if uses his tractor for his own non-agricultural use, it would not amount to violation of insurance policy.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(o), 2(1)(g) and 21(b) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Sections 2(42) 2(11) and 58]—Motor accident—Damages—Claim for—Tractor of complainant-petitioners was insured with opposite party for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-—Tractor met with an accident due to falling of stones from the hill—Repudiation of claim on the ground that tractor was not being used for agriculture and forestry purposes rather it was being used for carrying stones for commercial purpose—District Forum directed opposite party to pay Rs. 1,55,500/- and Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- for cost of proceedings—State commission set aside the same—Hence this revision petition—Use of tractor is to be seen with respect to policy conditions only for settlement of the insurance claim—None of the points as mentioned in policy clause i.e., limitations as to use are attracted in instant case—Impugned order of State Commission set aside—Amount as ordered by District Forum directed to be paid along with interest @ 5% p.a. from the date of order i.e., from 21.4.2009 till actual payment. (Paras 5 to 13)
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Shiv Nath & anr. against the order dated 02.02.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.878 of 2009.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the tractor of the petitioners/complainants being R.J.14-1R - 2040 was insured with the opposite party Insurance Company for a sum of Rs.1,50,000. The insurance was valid from 27.03.2005 – 26.03.2006. During the currency of the insurance policy, the tractor met with an accident due to falling of the stones from the hill. The Insurance Company vide its letter dated 07.10.2005 repudiated the claim on the ground that tractor was not being used for agriculture and forestry purposes, rather, it was being used for carrying stones for commercial purpose. The complainant then filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum being CC No.450/2009 (Earlier No.138/2007). The complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company on the ground that the surveyor has found that the tractor was being used for commercial purpose against the terms and conditions of the policy. On representation given by the complainants, the matter was again got investigated and the investigator in his report dated 28.08.2005 has also found that the tractor was being used for transporting stones for commercial purpose against the terms and conditions of the policy. The District Forum, however, allowed the complaint vide its order dated 21.4.2009 as under:-
“Therefore, the petition of the petitioners is accepted and it is directed to the opposite party that to pay a sum of Rs.1,33,500/- (as per Survey Report Ex./5) within two months of this order and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- on account of mental agony and a sum of Rs.2000/- on account of costs of the proceedings to the petitioners.”
3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondent Insurance Company preferred an appeal before the State Commission being Appeal No.878 of 2009. The State Commission accepted the appeal of the Insurance Company and set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.
4. Hence the present revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners/complainants stated that the State Commission has accepted the appeal of the Insurance Company only on the basis of the investigator’s report dated 28.08.2005. The investigator has not filed any proof that the tractor was being used for any commercial purpose. The fact is that the complainant farmer had gone to take some stones for his own use to be used in construction of his house. In fact, the farmer was converting his kachcha house into a pucca house. Even the statements taken by the investigator from some of the local persons/neighbours do not support the assertion of Insurance Company that the tractor was being used for transport of stone pieces on hire. In fact, all the persons who have given statements before the investigator have accepted that the complainant farmer was bringing the stones for construction of his own house. The learned counsel therefore, argued that the report of the investigator is not even based on the statements of the independent persons. It was also argued that the investigator has visited the spot and has inquired the matter only after one year of the incident. From this aspect also, the report of the investigator cannot be relied upon.
6. It was further argued by the learned counsel that if a farmer uses his tractor for his own non-agricultural use, it would not amount to the violation of the policy. Moreover, the policy does not define agriculture/forestry use. From the statements of independent persons taken by the investigator, it is clear that the complainant was bringing stones for construction of his own house. Therefore, it cannot be called a commercial purpose, as no profit is involved in this activity.
7. Learned counsel
