IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Permanent Lok Adalat & Anr. – Respondents
CWP-16427 of 2022
Decided On : 05-12-2023
JUDGMENT
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.
Both the above mentioned writ petitions are being decided by a common judgment as they arise out of same Award dated 26.05.2022 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Chandigarh.
2. For the facility of reference, the facts are being extracted from CWP-16427-2022 titled as "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another v. Permanent Lok Adalat and another".
3. The respondent-Applicant- Varun Bhasin (petitioner in connected CWP-25127-2022) filed an application under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 before Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Chandigarh for seeking directions to the petitioner- Insurance Company to make payment of Rs. 3, 00, 000/- towards the sum assured for the car alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of loss and alongwith other charges including compensation towards harassment and mental agony as well as litigation charges. It had been averred that the respondent-Applicant purchased Maruti DZire car bearing Registration No.CH-01-BN-4786, Model 2013. The said car was insured with the petitioner-Insurance Company vide policy No.231291/31/2018/759 valid from 20.11.2018 to 19.11.2019. One Revant Kumar son of Surender Singh resident of Jambal, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh was employed as driver by the respondent-Applicant and he possessed valid Driving Licence No.DL-1320160204220 dated 19.01.2016 valid upto 18.01.2026 for Motorcycle and LTV-NT issued by the Licensing Authority EZ-II, Surajmal Vihar, Delhi. The said driver was sent to Delhi for personal work of the respondent-Applicant. He started from Delhi on 25.06.2019 at about 06.00 p.m. and was accompanied by his brother Chaman Lal. When they reached near village Kambopura (Karnal) at about 12.15 a.m., the said car hit the back of a trolley towed to a tractor bearing Registration No.HR-05-AN-4164 which was parked in the middle of the road, without giving proper indicators. Resultantly, the car was badly damaged in the said accident while the driver namely Revant Kumar suffered serious injuries and died at the spot. An FIR No.223 dated 26.06.2019 under Sections 283, 337 and 304A of IPC was registered at Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal against the driver of the offending tractor-trolley. The damaged car was thereafter, brought to the Chadigarh at M/s Sirsa Motor Garage, Sector 48-C, Motor Market, Chandigarh where estimate of loss was prepared. Thereafter, a surveyor was appointed to assess the loss and to submit his report. The respondent-Applicant claims to have duly associated with the investigator/surveyor and extended all cooperation. Despite supplying the requisite information as sought for by the surveyor, the claim was not released. Resultantly, pursuant whereto the application was filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat.
4. Upon notice, the petitioner-Insurance Company entered appearance before the Permanent Lok Adalat and filed its written response pointing out a violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and with specific reference to Clause "Limitation as to use". The vehicle in question was registered in the name of respondent-Applicant- Varun Bhasin as a private car and the same was insured under the private car package policy for the abovesaid period. The Insurance Policy clearly mentions that the car is to be used for the purposes other than the "hire and reward", however, the insured car was being used for "hire and reward". The said aspect is supported from the contents of the FIR No.223 dated 26.06.2019 registered at Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal lodged by Chaman Lal, brother of deceased Revant Kumar. As per the police investigation report and the statement of the other co-passenger namely Yash Goel, travelling in the car, recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., he affirmed that the above said car was being used as a taxi for hire and reward purpose on 25.06.2019 for going from Delhi to Panchkula for a sum of Rs
B.V. Nagaraju v. M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Hassan
Bharat Watch Company thro its partner v. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Jitendra Kumar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2003) 6 SCC 420
LIC of India v. Smt. G.M. Channabasemma' AIR 1991 SC 392
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Paresh Mohanlal Parmar (2020) 1 RCR(Civ) 1006
A breach of essential terms of an insurance policy, such as using a private vehicle for hire, precludes the claimant from receiving benefits under the policy.
Insurance claims cannot be repudiated for minor breaches not causally linked to the loss; non-standard settlements are valid.
Liability of the insurance company in case of violation of R.T.O. rules and breach of permit conditions
Insurer's liability persists unless a breach of policy conditions is established; mere driving by an unlicensed driver does not absolve the insurer from payment obligations.
The court reaffirmed that insurance companies are liable to indemnify victims injured in goods vehicle accidents, even where passengers exceed policy limits, unless such violations are fundamental.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.