Back
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
P.Q. BARKATHALI, PRESIDENT & MR. V.V. JOSE, MEMBER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
PREMAN M.P. - Respondent
Appeal No. 225 of 2015
Decided On : 27-02-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. V. Manikantan Nair, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. B.A. Krishna Kumar, Amicus Curiae.
In cases of vehicles carrying more passengers than permitted, the claim should be settled on a non-standard basis, such as 75% of the claim amount, as established by previous decisions.
Headnote:
Insurance Claim - Vehicle Insurance - Interpretation of Policy Conditions
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's vehicle was insured with the opposite party, an Insurance Company. The vehicle met with an accident and the complainant spent a significant amount on repairs. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim, citing that the vehicle was carrying persons in excess of the permitted capacity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Insurance Company should have settled the claim on a non-standard basis, i.e., 75% of the claim amount, as per the principles established in previous decisions. The court modified the order of the Forum and directed the opposite party to pay a reduced amount to the complainant with interest and a cost.
Issues: 1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party? 2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous decisions to establish that in cases of vehicles carrying more passengers than permitted, the claim should be settled on a non-standard basis, such as 75% of the claim amount.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, and the order of the Forum was modified. The opposite party was directed to pay a reduced amount to the complainant with interest and a cost.
ORDER :
MR. JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI, PRESIDENT
1. This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.207/12 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram challenging the order of the Forum dated, November 29, 2014 directing the opposite party, Insurance Company to pay to the complainant Rs. 1,27,045 being the repair charge of his vehicle with interest and a compensation of Rs. 5,000 and a cost of Rs. 2,000.
2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:
Complainant is the RC owner of the pick-up van bearing registration No. KL-55-D-9043 which is insured with the opposite party, Insurance Company. The said vehicle met with an accident by colliding with a lorry bearing registration No. KL-11-B-4843 on August 17, 2011 at about 6.30 a.m. at Kottai, near Tirur. Tirur police has registered the case as Crime No. 594/11. Complainant spent about Rs. 2,77,160 to repair the vehicle. Opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that the said vehicle was carrying persons in excess of the permitted capacity. Therefore complainant filed this complaint claiming the repair charges of the vehicle
3. Opposite party is M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited represented by its Malappuram. Branch Manager. He in his version contended that at the time of the accident the vehicle was carrying 45 persons instead of the permitted capacity of 3 persons, thereby violating Clause 2(a) of the policy conditions and that therefore he is not entitled to claim the repair charges of the vehicle.
4. On the side of the complainant Exts.A1 and A2 were marked and on the side of the opposite party.Exts.P1 and B2 were marked before the Forum. On an appreciation of evidence Forum found that complainant is entitled to repair charges and directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs. 1,27,045 being the amount assessed by the surveyor along with compensation of Rs. 5000 and a cost of Rs. 2,000. Opposite party has now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.
5. Heard both the Counsel.
6. The following points arise for consideration:
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opppsite party?
2. Whither the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?
7. Counsel for the appellant argued that at the time of the accident vehicle was carrying 45 persons instead of the permitted capacity of 3 persons and that therefore complainant is not entitled to claim the repair charges of the vehicle as there is violation of Clause 2(b) of the policy conditions. We find no merit in the above contention. The accident involving the said vehicle and its policy with the opposite party is admitted. It is also not disputed that at the time of the accident it was 45 persons were carried in the vehicle and permitted capacity of the vehicle is only 3 which violates, Clause 2 of the policy conditions. But the Apex Court in Amalendu Sahoo v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2010) 4 SCC 536 has held that in such cases Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto and awarded 50% of the claimed amount. The National Commission in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Narayan Prasad Appaprasad Pathak, II (2006) CPJ 144 (NC), has held that in the case of the vehicle carrying more passengers than permitted it would be reasonable to settle the case on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the claim amount. Relying on the principles laid down in the above decision we are of the view that opposite party should have settled the claim on non-standard basis, i.e. 75% of the claim amount. In the present’ case surveyor has assessed the damage is Rs. 1,27,045, 75% of which comes to Rs. 95,233. Complainant is entitled that amount with interest at the rate of 12%. perannum from the date of complaint till realization. Forum has awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,000. In the circumstances we hold that complainant is not entitled to any compensation but only cost of Rs. 2,000 as ordered by the Forum.
In the result, appeal is allowed in p
