BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.

F.A.No.772/2009 against C.C.No.788 of 2006, Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad.

Between:

The New India Assurance Company Limited

Divisional Office-710 500

East Cast Chambers, 1^st Floor,

92, G.N.Cherry Road, T.Nagar,

Chennai-600 017.                                                                                                    …Appellant/OP No.2

And:

1. Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

    S/o.Mahaveer Prasad Chaturvedi

    Aged about 40 years, R/o.6-7-72/22,

    Bhoktapur, Adilabad.                                                                                  …Respondent/Complainant

2. Ashok Leyland Finance Limited, 3^rd Floor,

    Minerva House, 94 Sarojini Devi Road,

    Secunderabad-500 003.                                                                            …Respondent/OP-1

Counsel for the Appellant      :     Mrs.S.N.Padmini

Counsel for the Respondents :     Mr.Satish Deshpande-R1

   Mr.K.Venkateswarlu-R2

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

AND

SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST,

TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN

Oral Order (Per  Hon’ble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President )
                                                          *****

          This is an appeal preferred by the insurance company/opposite party No.2 against the order of the District Forum directing  it to pay 3,23,048/- together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment together with costs of Rs.2,000/-.

          The case of the complainant in brief is that he insured his car for Rs.3,63,000/-(?) (Rs.2,90,400 vide Ex.A5) commencing from  27-1-2005 to 27-1-2006 having purchased the same under Hire Purchase Agreement from opposite party No.1.  While so on 24-8-2005 the vehicle was damaged in an accident.  On a report, the Police registered the case in Crime No.64.  When the vehicle was taken to Autofin Limited, Secunderabad, it has given estimate for Rs.3,17,848/-.  When he made a claim, the insurance company repudiated the same on the ground what while the car was used as a transport vehicle, it was registered as a private car.  In fact, opposite party No.1, financier, had taken the policy mistakenly noting it as a private car and it was used as a motor cab for eking out his livelihood evident from the invoice.  For the mistake committed by the financier, he should not be penalized and therefore he claimed Rs.3,17,848/- together with demurrage at Rs.200/- per day and costs.

          The financier, opposite party No.1, resisted the case.  The cover note was raised by it and the same was sent along with the invoice to the insurance company mentioning that it was for taxi trade.  The insurance company was having information that the said vehicle was purchased for taxi trade, therefore, it could not have issued the policy as private car.  This was not observed either by the complainant or by it and therefore raising the said question at the time when the claim was to be settled was wrong.  The insurance company without perusing the invoice has invalidly issued the policy as a private car.  There is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed that the appeal be dismissed against it.

          The appellant, insurance company, equally resisted the case.  While admitting that a policy was issued, however it was issued for a private car and not for a commercial vehicle.  It collected premium as a private car and not as a commercial vehicle.  In fact the complainant has being using the vehicle from the date of inception