Chet Ram Chauhan vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD

BY this complaint, the complainant has claimed various relief(s) including damages of Rs. 1,30,000/- alongwith interest and compensation as enumerated in para-7 of the complaint.

THE facts set out in the complaint necessary to be mentioned for determining the point in controversy are that the complainant purchased Swaraj Mazda vehicle bearing Registration No. HIS-1224 in the year 1987 which was insured by the complainant with the respondents (hereinafter to be referred to as the Insurance Company) through Punjab National Bank, THE Mall, Shimla. THE Insurance Policy was valid upto May, 1991. During the year 1990-91, the complainant could not operate the vehicle for about 6 months as the complainant was required to carry out certain repairs in the vehicle and that he had no sufficient funds to undertake such repairs. THE vehicle was parked at Shogi. According to the complainant, the repairs of the vehicle could only be carried out satisfactorily at main Workshop, Ropar meant for repairs of Swaraj Mazda vehicles. Since the vehicle was not fit to be driven on the road for carrying it from Shogi to Ropar, he had to obtain temporary permit from Regional Transport Authority, Shimla (Annexure P1) to carry this vehicle to Ropar for repair purposes. Unfortunately, according to the complainant, when the vehicle reached near Ropar on 7.3.1991, some terrorists attacked the vehicle and after beating the driver and conductor of the truck, they stole the vehicle at gun point. THE whole incident occurred in mid-night at 1 a.m. on 8th of March, 1991. THEre was Rs. 6,000/- in cash with the driver which was also snatched by the terrorists. THE driver and conductor of the truck had to walk on foot for about 5 kms. to reach the concerned Police Station, Ropar. On reaching the Police Station, they lodged FIR at 8.15 a.m. on 8th March, 1991. THEre is no dispute that at the time when the truck was stolen and taken away by the terrorists, the Insurance Policy was in force and admittedly, the risk of theft was covered under the Insurance Policy. However, the stand of the Insurance Company in the reply is that the vehicle was not fit for passing for the period from 8.4.1990 to 9.4.1991 vide Annexure R-I and as such there is violation of the terms of the Insurance Policy as the complainant could not take the vehicle from Shogi to Ropar for the repair purposes without passing of the vehicle. However, otherwise the Insurance Company has admitted that the Surveyor has assessed the liability to the tune of Rs. 1,13,500/-.

An affidavit has been filed today by the Insurance Company dated 13.12.1996 and the Insurance Company has reiterated this stand in the evidence also that the vehicle of the complainant bearing Registration No. HIS-1224 was not passed and was not fit for being driven on the road as per certificate given by the Registration and Licensing Authority, Shimla and the same was driven in violation of the terms of the Insurance Policy and the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the complainant.

THE contention of the Insurance Company is completely without force. It may be noticed that the vehicle was not fit to be driven on the road and required repairs and it was parked at Shogi and it was taken to Ropar for repair purposes only and that is why the certificate was obtained from Regional Transport Authority, Shimla, vide Annexure P 1 to enable the complainant to take this vehicle for repair purposes to Ropar Workshop. There cannot be two opinions and it fully stands demonstrated that the vehicle was not road-worthy and required repairs and that the certificate of fitness/passing could only be obtained from the Regional Transport Authority after the same was repaired and found fit to be driven on the road. In such circumstances, we do not find any violation of the terms of contract of the Insurance Policy. Even otherwise the theft of the vehicle which is covered under the Insurance Policy, has no nexus at all with the passing of the vehicle for the purpose of driving on the road. This case is also covered by a decision in a case B.V. Nagaraju v. M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., II (1996) CPJ 18 (SC)=AIR 1996 SC 2054, whereby the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the breach of terms of the Insurance Policy should be so fundamental a breach so as to afford to the insurer to eschew liability altogether. The exclusion term of Insurance Policy must be read down so as to serve the main purpose of the policy that is indemnify the damage caused to the vehicle. The mere non-passing of the vehicle cannot be considered as a fundamental breach so as to deprive the insured the benefit of the policy of indemnifying him for damage caused to the vehicle.

HAVING regard to these circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company merely on the ground that the vehicle was not in fit condition and was not passed for the period from 8.4.1990 to 9.4.1991, wholly arbitrary and untenable in the eyes of law and the deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company is writ large on the face of it. Insofar as the damages to be awarded in favour of the complainant are concerned, the Surveyor, according to the evidence and reply filed by the Insurance Company, has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,13,500/- and we also assess this loss accordingly and the complainant is also entitled to interest @ 18% per annum on the above amount from the date of theft i.e., 7.3.1991. It may be noticed here that the claim was repudiated on 8.1.1993 and the complaint was filed on 31.3.1993 after a period of two months. In the light of foregoing, the complaint is allowed and the Insurance Company (respondents) are directed to pay Rs. 1,13,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum with effect from 7.3.1991 till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.

THE cost of Rs. 500/- is also awarded in favour of the complainant and against the respondents.

THE amount shall be paid within four weeks. Complaint allowed with costs.