New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs SUBHAS

THIS appeal, by the opposite party, is directed against the order dated 10.1.1995, passed by the District Forum, Dharwad, in complaint No. 460/93, directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 12,925/- with interest thereon. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: 1. The complainant had insured his truck bearing No. KA. 26-187 with the opposite party Insurance Co., the insured sum was for a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs and the insured period was from 23.6.1992 to 22.6.1993. The said truck met with an accident on 18.9.1992 and in the said accident the truck was damaged. The complainant filed a police complaint and also preferred a claim with the opposite party for reimbursement in a sum of Rs. 13,272.80. When the opposite party repudiated the claim, the complainant filed the complaint seeking the said amount of Rs. 13,272.80 with interest thereon and also compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, from the opposite party.

THE opposite party filed its version, admitted the fact that the said vehicle of the complainant was insured with it. It also did not deny the fact that the said vehicle had met with an accident and had sustained damages. It averred that the said vehicle, at the time of the accident, was carrying unauthorised passengers in violation of the terms of the insurance policy; so, the claim of the complainant came to be repudiated. During enquiry, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and got Ex. P1 to P17 marked in evidence. The Assistant Manager of the opposite party filed his affidavit in evidence. The District Forum, on consideration of this material placed on record by the parties, held that the opposite party committed deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant and in that view, directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 12,925/- with interest thereon as assessed by the surveyor of the opposite party Insurance Company.

We have called for the records and received. We have also heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, perused the material on record.

THE complainant had stated that it was only 6 coolies who were travelling in the truck at the time of the accident and no other fare paying passengers were travelling in the truck. THE repudiation of the claim of the complainant is only on the basis that at the time of the accident some passengers were travelling in the said truck. The Hon''ble Supreme Court, considered such aspect of the matter in Civil Appeal No. 6296/95 in B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and held that the carrying of passengers was in no way concerned with the cause of the accident nor they had contributed to the risk in respect of the loss caused to the vehicle. That is the view taken by the District Forum and it held that the opposite party committed deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant.

HAVING regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the order recorded by the District Forum. ORDER In the result, therefore, this appeal fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to pay and bear their own costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.