Appeal No.1954/04


1.Asgar Ali,r/o Shamnigaron ka Mohalla,Deedwana,Nagaur

2.Kamal Auto Finance Ltd.,M.I.Road,Jaipur

Appellants


V.


1.Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd,Sikar & anr.

Respondents



Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member



Shri Gopal Shastri,counsel for the appellants

Shri Rishi Pal Agarwal,counsel for the respondents




Date of Judgement: 9.7.09




BY THE STATE COMMISSION



This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellants against the order dated 17.9.04 passed by the District Forum-II,Jaipur in complaint no.565/03,by which the complaint of the complainant appellants was dismissed.


2


It arises in the following circumstances:


That the complainant appellants had filed a complaint against the respondents Oriental Insurance Company on 7.5.03 before the District Forum-II,Jaipur interalia stating that the complainant appellant no.1 had purchased a Tata Sumo from Kamal & Company,Jaipur after taking the finance facilities from the appellant no.2 Kamal Auto Finance Ltd on 31.10.2000 after paying Rs.4,45,425/- with engine no.48(3) B.L.41.C.Q.Q 720194 and chassis no.38500-CQQ.906059. It was further stated in the complaint that the said vehicle was got insured by the complainant appellant no.1 with the respondents insurance company for the period 1.10.2000 to 30.9.01 for a sum of Rs.4,45,425/-. It was further stated in the complaint that the said vehicle was stolen away on 18.12.2000 from Deedwana,District Nagaur and a report of that incident was lodged with the police station,Deedwana on 18.12.2000 bearing FIR no.163/2000 and the police in that case had submitted FR no.6/01. It was further stated in the complaint that information of that theft was given by the complainant appellant no.1 to the respondents insurance company though the formalities as desired by the respondents insurance company had been made by the complainant appellant no.1,but on the contrary,through letter dated 31.1.03 the claim was repudiated by the respondents insurance company as the appellant no.1 had violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Thereafter the present complaint was filed.


A reply was filed by the respondents insurance company before the District Forum-II,Jaipur on 29.11.03 and the case of the respondents insurance company was that the insured person in the policy was complainant appellant no.1 and since after its purchase and since upto the date of theft,there was no registration of the vehicle,therefore,claim was not payable as the vehicle in question

3


was being used by the complainant appellant no.1 against the terms and conditions of the policy and further against the provisions of M.V.Act. It was further replied that the investigator Shri R.L.Chopra had submitted his report on 21.8.02 and had further stated that the vehicle in question was being used for commercial purposes and from that point of view also,there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and it was stated that the claim was rightly repudiated and complaint be dismissed.


The District Forum after hearing both the parties through the impugned order dated 17.9.04 had dismissed the complaint as stated above,interalia holding that the vehicle in question was being used by the complainant appellant no.1 against the terms and conditions of the policy and further the vehicle was being plied without being registered etc etc.


Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the complainant appellants.


In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the complainant appellants specially complainant appellant no.1 is that so far as the question of registration of the vehicle is concerned,it has been argued that for registration application had been moved before the concerned authorities, but since it was not received,therefore,for that complainant appellant no.1 could not be held responsible and further though the vehicle in question was not being used for commercial purposes and thus the claim could be treated as sub standard and the repudiation of the claim in toto was not justified at all and to that extent appeal be allowed.


On the other hand,the learned counsel for the respondents insurance company has supported the impugned order.

4

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.


In this case, it clearly appears that the claim of the complainant appellants was rejected on 2 grounds-


1.

that the vehicle in question was being plied on the road without registration

(ii) that the same was being used for commercial purposes.


In our considered opinion,even there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy in respect of two items as stated above,even then the claim should have been treated and settled as sub standard and repudiation of the claim in toto was not justified at all, and thus the findings recorded by the District Forum by which the complaint was dismissed in toto could not be sustained and it is held that the claim should have been treated as sub standard. It may be clarified here that in this case only the complainant appellant no.1 is entitled to be indemnified for the loss of the vehicle and not the complainant appellant no.2.It is further made clear that in this case the claim is treated as sub standard because of some violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and these violations are not as such for which the claim could be repudiated in toto.


It is further made clear that at the time stolen away of the vehicle in question the same was insured only in name of complainant appellant no.1,therefore,the appeal would be allowed as stated above only in favour of complainant appellant no.1 and so far as the appeal of the complainant appellant no.2 is concerned,that would be rejected.


On point of compensation.


Since the vehicle in question was insured in name of complainant appellant no.1 for a sum of Rs.4,45,425/- and since the vehicle in question had been stolen away,therefore,the complainant appellant no.1 is entitled to 75 % of the insured amount of Rs.4,45,425/- and that comes to Rs. 3,34,069/-. To that extent,the appeal of appellant no.1 deserves to be allowed.

For reasons as stated above,this appeal filed by the complainant appellants is allowed so far as the complainant appellant is concerned and impugned order dated 17.9.04 passed by the District Forum-II,Jaipur is quashed and set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant appellant no.1 is allowed in the manner that the respondents insurance company would pay a sum of Rs.3,34,069/- to the complainant appellant no.1 with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint alongwith Rs.3000/- as amount of cost of litigation and the appeal of appellant no.2 stands rejected.




Member President