Back
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FA No.1594 / 2016.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office No.5,
Through Branch Office
Sultania Road, Bhopal (M.P.).
…. APPELLANT.
Versus
Kailash Chandra Sethi
s/o Late Shri Ratanlal Sethi,
R/o Shastri Colony, Narsullaganj,
Sehore (M.P.).
…. RESPONDENT.
As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :
Date of
ORDER
Order
27.05.2022
Shri Anurag Khaskalam, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Nagar, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard.
This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 challenging the order dated 31.8.2016 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short the “District
Commission”) in CC No.874/2009 whereby the District Commission has
allowed the complaint filed by the respondent – complainant and directed
the appellant to pay Rs.1,04,195/- with interest @ 9% from 16.10.2008 till
payment. In
-
2 -
addition Rs.25000/- has been ordered to be paid towards mental agony and
Rs.5000/- towards costs.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 28.5.2008
the respondent’s vehicle Tata Sumo Spacio bearing registration No. MP 04
T 7108, which was insured by him with the appellant – Insurance Company
met with an accident resulting into extensive damage to the said vehicle.
The respondent – complainant lodged a claim seeking compensation of
Rs.1,30,660/- before the appellant – Insurance Company. The appellant –
Insurance Company after investigation noticing the fact that at the time of
accident the vehicle was carrying 11+1 passengers as against the sitting
capacity of 9 + 1, repudiated the claim on the ground of breach of policy
condition to the effect that the vehicle was carrying more passengers than
the permissible limits of its reigstration.
3. Dissatisfied with the said repudiation letter the respondent –
complainant had filed the complaint case as aforesaid. The District
Commission after considering the evidence led by the parties and after
taking note of the fact that no evidence was led by the appellant – Insurance
Company to prove that the accident occurred due to overloading in the said
vehicle, allowed the complaint and directed the appellant – Insurance
Company to pay compensation as was assessed by the surveyor with
- 3 -
interest @9% p.a. and also awarded Rs.25000/- towards mental agony and
Rs.5000/- towards costs. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has filed this
appeal.
4. Shri Anurag Khaskalam, learned counsel for the appellant argues
that it may not be a case of repudiation of the claim in toto, but since the
vehicle was being plied carrying the passengers more than the seating
capacity there is a breach of policy condition and as such the principle
approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Amalendu Sahoo versus
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2010 CTJ 485 (Supreme Court) (CP)
ought to have been applied and the amount of compensation ought to have
been restricted to 75% of the amount assessed by the surveyor.
5. On the other hand Shri Ajay Nagar, learned counsel for the
respondent / complainant has supported the impugned order.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the
impugned order and the record, we find that as against the permissible
seating capacity of the vehicle of 9+1, the insured allowed 11 +1
passengers in it. However, there is no evidence to the effect that the cause
of accident was carrying of more passengers than the seating capacity of
the said
-
4 -
vehicle. Taking into consideration that there is no evidence on record that
the accident occurred due to overloading by carrying more passengers than
its seating capacity, in our considered view the District Commission has
committed no error in holding the repudiation of the claim on that ground to
be unjustified.
7. True it is that me
