ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. Vs CHANDRAKANT RAMANLAL PANCHAL

This Revision Petition, by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (for short "the Insurance Company"), is directed against the order dated 30.9.2011, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat at Ahmedabad (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.1266/2010. By the impugned order, while overturning the order dated 12.4.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Surat (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No.303/2008, the State Commission has directed the Petitioners herein to pay to the Complainant a sum of 2,40,417/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint till realization, for indemnification of the loss suffered by him on account of the accident of the vehicle in question, viz. Mahindra & Mahindra Bolero motor car, on 25.12.2007. The District Forum had dismissed the Complaint on the ground that the vehicle in question having been used in violation to the terms of the Policy, namely, that being a private car, it was used for carrying the passengers, the Petitioner Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim as being hit by the clause with respect to "limitation as to use".

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

At the outset, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has brought to our notice a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - (2010) 4 SCC 536, wherein while observing that though no payment for hiring charges had been proved by the Insurance Company while repudiating the claim on the ground that the vehicle had been used for hire, the Hon''ble Court had directed the Insurance Company to settle the claim on non-standard basis of the warranty/admissible claim.

In our opinion, the said decision is on all fours to the facts at hand. Though there is no direct evidence of charging of any amount by the Complainant from the persons who were travelling in the said vehicle, when it met with an accident but it appears from the contemporaneous documents on record, including the FIR, that the vehicle was in fact being used for carrying the passengers.

Accordingly, we partly allow the Appeal; set aside the impugned order and direct that the claim preferred by the Complainant shall be settled on non-standard basis, i.e. 75% of the admissible claim (i.e. 2,40,417/-). The Complainant shall also be entitled to the interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint till realization, as directed by the State Commission.

The amount deposited by the Insurance Company in the District Forum in terms of order passed by this Commission on 24.4.2012, shall be released to the Complainant forthwith on his moving appropriate application in this behalf. The deficiency in the amount to be paid in terms of this order shall be made good by the Insurance Company within four weeks from today by means of a Demand Draft favouring the Complainant.

The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.