Back
GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
M.J. Mehta, President (In Charge) and
Dr. J.G. Mecwan, Member
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
versus
Fakirnhai Haribhai Ahir – Respondent
Appeal No.15 of 107
Decided on 12.6.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S. 15 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.41] – Appeal – Practice and Procedure – Pre Deposit Condition - Thus, if there is a breach of condition of policy including limitation as to use, insurance company is entitled to pay 75% of the claim amount – Thus, 75% of the claim amount is required to be awarded to the complainant by the present appellant – Appeal partly allowed, The opponent insurance company is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.1,10,250/- at 7% interest from the date of complaint. [Paras 2 to 11].
Result: Appeal allowed.
ORDER
M.J. Mehta, President (In Charge)—The present appeal is preferred by the original opponent, against the judgment and order passed by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Valsad dated 14/08/2014 in complaint case no.28/2013.
2. The Present appellant is the original opponent and the respondent is the original complainant in the judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Commission, Valsad in complaint no. 28/2013. For the sake of convenience, parties are hereinafter referred to by their original nomenclature/status.
3. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
The complainant is the owner of the Eicher Tempo bearing RTO registration no. GJ-15-X-7500. The insurance was taken from the respondent company for the period 29/01/2012 to 28/01/2023. On 16/12/2012, an accident had taken place on N.H. No.8 near Vapi, the said tempo met with an accident and as a result the tempo sustained damages. The complainant had intimated the insurance company about the accident.
4. The opponent insurance company has appointed surveyor who had prepared a survey report and ultimately Ld. District Commission has ordered to pay Rs.1,48,000/- at 9% interest to the complainant.
5. Today matter came up for hearing. Ld. Adv. for the appellant has submitted before me that the judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Commission is not tenable in the eye of law as there was a breach of condition.
6. We have gone through the judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Commission and records of the Ld. District Commission, we came to the conclusion that the policy in question is not in dispute and the incident happened is also intimated to the insurance company well within the time limit.
7. The Ld. Adv. for the appellant has argued that the policy schedule is produced before the Ld. District Commission wherein Limitation as to use is given and it is mentioned that policy does not cover for use for carrying passengers in the vehicles; except employees not exceeding the number permitted in the registration document and coming under the purview of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Thus, the judgment and order is required to be interfered with.
8. The Ld. Adv. Amit Patel for the respondent submitted before us that there is no breach of condition of the policy because from the FIR of the incident it cannot be said with certainty that Parvatiben was travelling in the tempo as a passenger at the time of accident therefore the repudiation of claim believing that Parvatiben was travelling as a passenger and so the tempo was used for hire and reward violating the above said policy term as limitation as to use, is not correct.
9. Ld. Adv. for the appellant has submitted that the interest rate awarded by the Ld. District Commission is high and it needs to be reduced.
10. Ld. Adv. Amit Patel has referred the citation (1) 2010 Lawsuit (SC) 403 and (2) 2015 Lawsuit (CO) 1142 wherein it is stated that if there is a breach of condition of policy including limitation as to use, insurance company is entitled to pay 75% of the claim amount.
11. Thus we came to the conclusion that 75% of the claim amount is required to be awarded to the complainant by the present appellant. Thereby, we partly allow the appeal and in the interest of justice, we pass the following order:—
ORDER
1. The appeal no.107/15 is partly allowed.
2. The order of the Ld. District Commission, Valsad dated 14/08/2014 in complaint no.28/2013 is modified.
3. The opponent insurance company is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.1,10,250/- at 7% interest from the date of complaint.
4. The rest of the order passed by the Ld. District Commission, Valsad dated 14/08/2014 in complaint no.28/2013 is hereby confirmed.
5. Registry directed to verify the amount deposited by the applicant in appeal no.15/107 and if found deposited, refund the same with interest, if any, accrued on the deposit to the appellant by RTGS after following the due procedure and verification. For the purpose t
Limitation - If there is a breach of condition of policy including limitation as to use, insurance company is entitled to pay 75% of the claim amount.
1) Though all required documents were submitted by the Respondent to the Appellant, claim of the Respondent was repudiated by the Appellant for not supplying the documents.2) Calculation made by surv....
Goods Vehicle Insurance – Insured cannot be given amount beyond agreed Insured Declared Value (IDV) under Insurance Policy.
(1) Settlement on Non-Standard Basis (Insurance Law Principle) – As established by the Supreme Court in Nitin Khandelwal, when a vehicle is insured as a private vehicle but meets with an accident whi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
