IMPORTANT POINT
Goods Vehicle Insurance – Insured cannot be given amount beyond agreed Insured Declared Value (IDV) under Insurance Policy.

ORDER

Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and Orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hassan (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) and the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), the Petitioner/ Insurance Company - Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance filed this Revision Petition No. 3450 of 2018 under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act) against Mr. Rangaswamy (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent/ Complainant). The Complaint filed by the Complainant being Consumer Complaint No. 59 of 2014 before the District Forum was partly allowed. The relevant portion of the Order dated 30.10.2015 is reproduced as under: -

“Point No.1: On perusal of the pleadings, affidavits and exhibits marked in this case, it is undispute that the goods vehicle bearing No. KA-13-4902 was insured with the OP, the said vehicle was met with an accident on 30/31.08.2012 and was extensively damaged, that on the date of accident the policy was valid, the intimation of the accident was given to OPs, the OPs have registered the claim and surveyed the said accident through its authorized surveyor, the said surveyor assessed the damage of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.9,37,097/-, the FIR was lodged before the concerned police, the concerned police have registered the FIR bearing No.248/12 in Crime No. 272/2012 on 31.08.2012.

10. The relevant point in controversy is that whether the OPs can repudiate the claim on the reason that six persons were carried in the goods vehicle at the time of accident in the place of 3 persons. The....

.....

12. We have also gone through the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled B.V Nagaraju vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (1996 IV SCC 647) and reproduced the relevant portions hereunder:

.......

13. On going through the ratio of the above judgments, we are of the view that the repudiation made by the OPs in the instant case is unjust and hold the point no.1 in Affirmative.

14. Point No. 2: In view of the above discussions made in point No.1 and on observing the other facts of the case the complainant is entitled to the claim of a sum of Rs.9,37,097/- being the damages as accessed by the surveyor of the OPs company subject to the terms and conditions of the policy with 6% interest p.a. from the date of this Complaint, Rs.5000/- towards the deficiency towards the cost of the Complaint. Hence we hold the point No.2 in “Affirmative in part”.

15. Point No. 3: In the result the Complaint is allowed in part and as such we proceed to pass the following

Order

The complaint is allowed in part.

OPs are directed to pay a sum off Rs.9,37,097/- towards the damages as assessed by the surveyor of the OPs company subject to the terms and conditions of the policy with 6% interest p.a. from the date of the complaint to till its realization, Rs.5000/- towards the deficiency of service and Rs.2500/- towards the cost of the complaint within six weeks from the date of this order. Fails to pay the said amount within six weeks the complainant is entitled to get 9% interest from the date of this order for the said term.

Send the copies of this order to the parties.”

2. Being aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission, which vide Order dated 07.09.2018 dismissed the Appeal with cost of Rs.5000/-. The relevant portion of the Order of the State Commission reads as under:

“17. When there is no cogent and credible evidence on behalf of the appellant to establish the fact that overloading of the vehicle directly and mainly attributed to the accident, then the repudiation by the appellant/Company cannot be appreciated. In that view of the matter there has been a deficiency of service on behalf of the appellants. The District Forum while looking to the admitted facts has also held that carrying more passengers was not cause for