Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs ANANDA KUMAR AGRAWALA

THE Insurance Company is in appeal. THE case of the complainant is the repudiation of claim by the Insurance Company on the ground of violation of terms of insurance policy was arbitrary and whimsical. THE mini truck of the complainant bearing Regn. No. OR-15-A 2271 was comprehensively insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. This insurance was valid up to 6.8.1994. It met with an accident on 12.6.1994 while coming back from Talcher after delivery of goods at Talcher, sent from Katapali, Sambalpur.

ON 12.6.1994 the vehicle carried steel furniture of Sanjay Udyog of Katapalli, Dist-Sambalpur to Talcher of Dist. Angul. After unloading the goods at destination the vehicle was returning back on the next day. It was empty near village Ambapal, a group of persons stopped the vehicle forcibly and compelled the driver to carry them in the truck to Sambalpur. They had with them musical instruments. According to them they were coming to Sambalpur to participate in Sithal Sasthi Festival. The driver protested, but assaulted, was compelled to take all persons. On the way, the vehicle met with an accident and was damaged and some of the passengers were injured. The matter was reported to the Insurance Company on 14.6.1995. One Surveyor was deputed to inspect the vehicle at the spot. Thereafter the vehicle was towed to Sambalpur and repaired at Ramesh Garrage. Another Surveyor was deputed to inspect the vehicle and to assess the loss. He made an agreement with the complainant for Rs. 22,000/- for the cost of the parts to be replaced and also for labour charges. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was deducted towards depreciation and cost of salvages. The balance amount of Rs. 17,000/- was to be paid to the complainant.

New parts of Rs. 10,000/- were purchased and all the cash memos of Rs. 21,000/- were submitted towards labour charges but the insurer repudiated the Claim No. 13/17.4.1995 on the ground that the vehicle was carrying passenger at the material time which violated the condition of the permit and provision of M.V. Act.

DISTRICT Forum''s view is that the complainant should not be penalised for the mischievous action of the others on the way while the vehicle was returning to Angul without carrying any passenger or goods. The learned Counsel for Insurance Company cited some decisions reported in 1994 (1) TAC 139, Soumandra Singh v. Hayat Khan. The learned Counsel has also cited decisions reported in I (1987) ACC 413 (SC)=1987 ACJ 411, Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandra Hadawaed and Others. The accident took place on 12.6.1994. He informed the Insurance Company on 14.6.1996 and the Insurance Company deputed the Surveyor to inspect the vehicle at the spot. Final Surveyor was also deputed by Insurance Company and also assessed the loss but after such a long time the Insurance Company without accepting the report of final Surveyor or without considering the bills and cash memos of the complainant stated that the vehicle was carrying passengers at the material time which violated the policy conditions and M.V. Act. Further travelling of owners on goods vehicle is not a violation of M.V. Act as per Section 147 of Amended M.V. Act, 1994. We do not find any infirmity in order of the District Forum. Except instead of quantifying the loss, if asked the Insurance Company to settle the loss. Therefore, we for ourselves on going through the materials on record find the complainant to have spent Rs. 31,000/- for repair including purchase of spare parts, labour, etc. Hence, in our considered opinion, we order that the Insurance Company (appellant) to pay Rs. 31,000/- (Rupees thirty-one thousand) only which have been spent by the complainant towards cost of purchase of spares and cost of repair and Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) towards cost for compensation and mental agony, within two months from the receipt of this order. Appeal is dismissed. D.M. Patnaik, President-I agree. Pramod Nath Das, Member-I agree. Appeal dismissed.