J.S. AHLUWALIA vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 4.6.2003 in Complaint No. 26/2002 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short) awarding a sum of Rs. 18,167/- with interest thereon besides cost of the complaint to the complainant.

UNDISPUTABLY the complainant/appellant is the owner of Mahindra and Mahindra Commander Jeep bearing Regn. No. MP26E/7221. The said vehicle was comprehensively insured by the respondent insurer company for the period from 31.1.2001 to 30.1.2002. The amount of premium was also duly paid by the appellant to the respondent. It is not in dispute that the said jeep met with an accident on the night intervening between 23.5.2001 and 24.5.2001, i.e., during the subsistence of the policy near Lakhanpur. The complainant/appellant reported the matter to the police and also submitted claim with the respondent insurer. Spot survey was conducted on 31.5.2001 by the Surveyor appointed by the respondent-insurer. Final survey was also conducted on 4.6.2001. It is also not in dispute that by letter dated 15.10.2001 the respondent/insurer intimated the complainant/appellant that his claim has been repudiated on the ground that the vehicle was used for hire and reward as taxi while the vehicle was insured as a private vehicle and thus there was violation of M.P. Motor Vehicles Act and terms of the policy. The complainant raised the grievance in his complaint that the repudiation was not proper. He averred that the vehicle was not being used for hire and reward as taxi and the same was handed over by the complainant to his friend Ajay Singh on his request. The complainant claimed that Rs. 45,894/- be awarded as compensation as the said sum was spent by him in the repairs of the damaged jeep.

The respondent/insurer resisted the complaint. According to it the report of the Surveyor and material collected by him disclose that at the time of accident the jeep was being plied in violation of terms of policy, inasmuch as the jeep though registered as private vehicle was being used for hire and reward as taxi. It was also averred that the driver of the jeep was intoxicated and was driving rashly and negligently resulting in the accident. It was averred by the insurer that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.

THE learned District Forum held that the vehicle was given on hire and thus breached the terms of policy. Relying upon the decision of National Commission in Rajeev Rathore v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., I (2003) CPJ 206 (NC), the claim of the appellant was, however, treated as non-standard. Accordingly, 75% of the amount of loss as assessed by the Surveyor was awarded. In this appeal the appellant himself appeared at the time of final arguments. He assailed the impugned order. It was submitted by him that the jeep was handed over to his friend Ajay Singh on his request without any charge and that it was not being used as taxi. It was, therefore, prayed that the whole of the expenses incurred by him towards repairs of the jeep should have been reimbursed and awarded as compensation.

THE learned Counsel for respondent/insurer, however, supported the impugned order and urged that there is ample material on record, which was also referred to in the impugned order indicating that the jeep was being plied for hire and reward at the time of accident. THErefore, District Forum rightly awarded 75% of the amount of loss as assessed by the Surveyor. In view of the controversy as above, the main question that arises for consideration is: as to whether the District Forum was justified in holding that the vehicle was being plied for hire and reward? It may be noticed in the above context that according to the complainant the jeep was given to his friend Ajay Singh on his request and that no charges were paid to him by Ajay Singh. The affidavit of Ajay Singh has been filed in the above connection. It may be noticed that the report with police lodged by Ganesh Lanjekar regarding the said accident. The said Ganesh Lanjekar was in the said jeep. He has specifically stated in the F.I.R., copy of which is on the record of District Forum, that the jeep was taken on hire. There is yet another letter on record which shows that the vehicle was hired through Ganesh Lanjekar and the charges were recovered. The investigator Tapan Kumar Goswami during investigation has also found that the vehicle was being plied for hire and reward and that the driver of the said vehicle was also intoxicated as would be clear from the report dated 19.2.2001 of the said investigator Tapan Kumar Goswami.

IN view of the material as above, which has also been discussed in details by the District Forum in the impugned order, it is clear that there was material on record to hold that the jeep was being plied for hire and reward at the time of accident. IN the circumstances repudiation by the insurer of the appellant''s claim by their letter dated 15.10.2001 was bona fide. Therefore, such a repudiation cannot be termed as deficiency in service. Reference in the above context may be made to the decision of National Commission in National INsurance Ltd. v. Rais Abbas Naqvi, II (1996) CPJ 156 (NC), and III (1993) CPJ 358 (NC) and M/s. National INsurance Co. Ltd. v. Pattara Kerambalur, in Appeal No. 463/1992 decided on 26.7.1993, (reproduced in National Commission and Supreme Court on consumer cases, Chief Editor M.K. Swavan Bhatia Nijhawan Part II at page 3681).

IN the circumstances, it is clear that findings and award of District Forum does not call for any interference. The impugned order is affirmed. Accordingly, this appeal has no substance and it is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.