Appeal No.1371/08

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Ram Manohar Gupta



Before:

Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member


Shri Jitendra Mitruka,counsel for the appellant

Shri Kamal Gupta,counsel for the respondent



Date of judgement: 25.3.2009


This appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company against the order dated 30.5.08 passed by the District Forum-I,Jaipur in complaint no.1252/06,by which the complaint of the complainant respondent was allowed against the appellant insurance company in the manner that the appellant insurance company was directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 7% p.a wef 18.11.06 and if the above amount was not paid within one month the rate of interest would be 12% p.a.


It arises in the following circumstances:


That the complainant respondent had filed a complaint against the appellant insurance company before the District Forum-I,Jaipur on 18.11.06 interalia stating that his Indica car bearing no.RJ.14.7C.7715 was got insured with the appellant insurance company for the period 27.3.06 to 26.3.07 for a sum of Rs.2,40,290/-. It was further stated in the complaint that the said vehicle had met with an accident on 8.5.06 with the tractor trolly as a result of which the car was damaged and assessment of the loss was to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. It was further

2


stated in the complaint that information of that incident was also given by the complainant respondent to the office of the appellant and thereafter Shri R.C.Bindal, surveyor was appointed to assess the loss, but the claim of the complainant respondent was repudiated by the appellant insurance company through letter dated 17.8.06 interalia stating on the ground that at the time of accident,the vehicle in question was being used for commercial purposes and since it was against the terms and conditions of the policy,therefore,claim was not payable. Thereafter the present complaint was filed claiming Rs.50,000/- as amount of compensation for the damage to the vehicle apart from other compensation for mental agony etc.


A reply was filed by the appellant before the District Forum on 17.7.07 and in the reply they have taken the same pleas which were taken in the repudiation letter dated 17.8.06 and the claim was rightly repudiated and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.


The District Forum after hearing both the parties through the impugned order dated 30.5.08 had allowed the complaint as stated above,interalia holding that since the complainant respondent had claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- as amount of damage to the vehicle and that amount was ordered to be paid by the appellant insurance company to the complainant respondent and the case of the appellant insurance company that the vehicle in question was being used for commercial purposes was rejected.


Aggrieved from that order this appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company.


In this appeal the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as per the report of Shri R.C.Bindal dated 12.8.06 ex.R.1,the fact that the vehicle in question was being used for

3




commercial purposes is well established and rejecting the findings of Shri Bindal was not justified as the investigation report of Shri Bindal is based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and thus since the vehicle in question was being used for commercial purposes against the terms and conditions of the policy,therefore,the findings recorded by the District Forum be quashed and set aside appeal be allowed.

On the other hand,the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.


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


In this case a bare perusal of the investigation report of Shri Bindal dated 12.8.06 reveals that at the time accident the vehicle in question was being used for commercial purposes.


The question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances just narrated above,in such cases the claim should be repudiated in toto or whether the claim should be treated as sub standard.


The position of law is very much clear on the point that in such cases the claim should be treated as sub standard and decreeing the claim for a sum of Rs.50,000/-,the amount claimed by the complainant respondent was not justified and the complainant respondent was entitled to 75% amount of Rs.50,000/- that comes to Rs.37,500/- and to that extent,the impugned order dated 30.5.08 deserves to be modified.


For reasons as stated above,this appeal filed by the appellant insurance company is partly allowed in the manner that the appellant

4




insurance company would pay a sum of Rs.37,500/-in place of Rs.50,000/- and to that extent the impugned order dated 30.5.08 passed by the District Forum-I,Jaipur be treated as modified. Rest order is maintained.




Member President