NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs DEVENDER SINGH & ORS.

This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 07.05.2013, passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 112/2013, Devendra Singh & Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Appeal No. 2544/2012, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Devendra Singh & Ors., vide which, while dismissing both the appeals, the order dated 11.09.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bulandshahar in Consumer Complaint No. 73/2009, filed by the present respondents was upheld.

The present respondents/complainants filed the consumer complaint in question against the opposite party, Insurance Company, stating that they had purchased a Farm Track Champion Tractor Escort Ltd. 35 HP for an amount of Rs. 3,93,158/- on 25.01.2008 by raising loan from the State Bank of India, Bulandshahar. The said tractor, bearing registration no. UP 13Q 2490, was insured with the Insurance Company for the period from 11.02.2008 to 11.02.2009. The said tractor and three other tractors were engaged in mud-filling at Bulandshahar Khurja Development Authority, Kalindi Kunj Project when the tractors were stolen by 20-25 armed men on the intervening night of 09/10.07.2008. A complaint about the incident was lodged with Khurja Nagar Police Station on 10.03.2008. The complainants filed claim dated 08.04.2008 before the opposite party and supplied requisite information as per the demands of their surveyor, but the claim was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the said tractor was doing the mud-filling work, although it was registered for agricultural purposes. The complainant claimed relief demanding cost of tractor as Rs. 3,93,158/-, damages at Rs. 50,000/- and litigation expenses at Rs. 20,000/-, a total amount of Rs. 4,63,158/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the opposite parties.

The complaint was contested by the opposite party, Insurance Company by filing a written reply before the District Forum, in which they stated that the tractor was insured under Kisan Package Policy, according to which, it was to be used for agriculture purpose only. However, since the said tractor was being used for mud-filling purpose under the Kalindi Kunj Scheme of Bulandshahar Khurja Development Authority, the claim was not liable to be paid, because the tractor was being used for a commercial purpose.

The District Forum, after taking into account the contentions of the two parties, allowed the complaint and directed payment of 75% of the claim on non-standard basis, relying upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, 2008 (1) ALR 813 (SC) . Being aggrieved against this order, the opposite party, Insurance Company filed an appeal before the State Commission. Simultaneously, the complainant also challenged the said order by way of a separate appeal. However, both these appeals were dismissed vide impugned order and the order of the District Forum was upheld. Being aggrieved against the impugned order, the opposite party, Insurance Company is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the time of arguments that since the tractor was being used for commercial purpose at the time of its theft, the claim was not payable in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant stated, on the other hand, that there was no nexus between the theft of a vehicle and its usage at that time. The learned counsel also stated that the District Forum had rightly relied upon the case National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal (supra) and the said order should be upheld.

I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties.

It is an admitted case of the complainant that at the time of theft, the tractor in question alongwith other tractors were being used for mud-filling work on the project of Bulandshahar Khurja Development Authority and the said tractors were also parked at the working site of that Authority. It is also not denied that the said tractor had been registered for agriculture purpose only. It is to be examined, therefore, whether the complainants are liable to be compensated by the Insurance Company under the terms and conditions of the policy, although the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal (supra) stated as under:-

"13. In the case in hand, the vehicle has been snatched or stolen. In the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane. The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the 8appellant-Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis. The Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft."

Following the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court, it is evident that the District Forum rightly relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court and decided to allow 75% of the compensation on non-standard basis to the complainants. There are concurrent findings of the consumer fora below in this regard and there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by them.

I, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the said orders in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the order passed by the consumer fora below upheld with no order as to costs.