Insurance claims cannot be completely dismissed if some liability exists, even with non-compliance to policy terms.

Per say - Justice Sunita Yadav, President.

This appeal by the appellant/opposite party- S.B.I.

General Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’), is directed against the order dated

19.10.2022, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission No.2, Indore (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 497/2017, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by respondent/complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’).

2. Heard on I.A.-1, an application filed by the Insurance Company, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC for taking reports of Surveyor and Investigator on record as additional evidence.

3. Learned counsel for complainant has vehemently opposed the application I.A.-1 and argued that the Surveyor’s report dated 6.12.2013 is filed with a delay of about 10 years and Investigator’s report dated 7.4.2014 is filed with a delay of about 9 years, without assigning any reason regarding non- arability of the report at the time of trial before the District Commission, therefore, the application be dismissed.

4. The appellant has not assigned any reason why the said reports dated 6.12.2013 and 7.4.2014 could not be filed before the learned District Commission. The reports are being filed with a delay of about 10 years that too, without assigning any reason, therefore, application I.A.-1, is dismissed.

5. Heard on merits.

6. Briefly put, the facts of the case are that the complainant is owner of a ‘Tavera’ car bearing registration No. MP-09-BC 8813, which was insured with the Insurance Company w.e.f. 5.3.2013 to 4.3.2014. During currency of the policy on 14.9.2013, the vehicle met with an accident and got damaged. For repair of the vehicle the complainant spent and amount of Rs.3,20,855/- and when he claimed the amount from the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company has repudiated the same. Therefore, alleging deficiency on the part of Insurance Company, the complainant filed the aforesaid complaint before the District Commission, seeking relief.

7. The Insurance Company resisted the complaint and in their reply submitted that the vehicle was insured as a private car but she was using it for commercial purpose, as in about 8 months the car has run 28,084 KMs. Since the vehicle was using contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the claim amount and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

8. The District Commission after appreciating the evidence filed by the parties, partly allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay 75% of the claim amount Rs.3,20,855/- i.e. Rs.2,40,641 to complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of repudiated of claim i.e. 21.7.2014. Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as costs has also been awarded.

9. Learned counsel for Insurance Company argued that the impugned order is perverse and against the settled principle of law. The District Commission has failed to consider the documents and evidence of the Insurance Company. Therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the relief claimed by the Insurance Company be granted in their favour.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the impugned order is in accordance with the evidence and settled principle of law. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

11. Perused the record and impugned order.

12. It is not in dispute that the vehicle in question was insured with the Insurance Company at the relevant time i.e. on 14.9.2013 when it met with an accident. The claim of the complainant was rej