Haryana

StateCommission

A/1101/2016

MANOJ KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

BALDEV SINGH BADHRAN

30 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                     First Appeal No  :   225 & 1101 of 2016

Date of Institution:  16.03.2016 & 18.11.2016

                                     Date of Decision:   30.08.2017

 

 

Appeal No.225 of 2016

 

 

 

1.      The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Head Office A-25-27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.

2.      The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Karnal.

          Both through Sh. S.P. Singh, Regional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, LIC Building, IInd Floor, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt.

                             Appellants-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

Versus

 

1.      Manoj Kumar son of Sh. Bhartu Ram, resident of Village Urlana Kalan, Tehsil Madlauda, District Panipat, now residing at Ward no.15, Shiv Colony, Safidon, District Jind.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company Services limited, through its Branch Manager, Office at Sector 11-12, Panipat.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.3

 

Appeal No.1101 of 2016

 

 

Manoj Kumar son of Sh. Bhartu Ram, resident of Village Urlana Kalan, Tehsil Madlauda, District Panipat, now residing at Ward no.15, Shiv Colony, Safidon, District Jind.

Appellant -Complainant

Versus

 

1.      The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Head Office A-25-27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.

2.      The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Karnal.

          Both through Sh. S.P. Singh, Regional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, LIC Building, IInd Floor, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt.

3.      Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company Services limited, through its Branch Manager, Office at Sector 11-12, Panipat.    

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Ms. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

 

Argued by: Shri D.C. Kumar, Advocate for The Oriental Insurance Company Limited

                   Shri Ravi Kant, Advocate for Manoj Kumar-complainant

                   Shri S.C. Thatai, Advocate for Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company Services Limited.

                  

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This order disposes of afore-mentioned two appeals bearing No.225 of 2016 filed by The Oriental Insurance Company Limited-opposite parties No.1 and 2 (for short, ‘Insurance Company) and 1101 of 2016 filed by Manoj Kumar-complainant because they have arisen out of common order dated January 29^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short, ‘District Forum’) in complaint No.294 of 2012. 

2.      The complainant was owner of car bearing registration No.HR06U-9103.  The car was insured with the Insurance Company for the period February 04^th, 2010 to February 03^rd, 2011.  On April 04^th, 2010 the car met with an accident.  The car was damaged.  The Insurance Company was informed.  The Insurance Company appointed surveyor, who assessed the net loss at Rs.5,98,924/-.  The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.  The District Forum directed the Insurance Company to pay 75% of the total loss assessed, to the complainant because there was violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  The car was being used for hire and reward.

3.      Counsel heard.  Record over the case file has been perused.

4.      It is not in dispute that the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company assessed the loss at Rs.5,98,924/-.  The only question involves in this matter is as to whether the District Forum was justified in directing the Insurance Company to pay the amount after deducting 25% on Non Standard Basis because the car was being plied on hire as a taxi at the time of accident.         

5.      Insurance Company has relied upon the statement of Manoj Kumar, complainant, Narender Kumar and Karambir wherein it has been categorically stated that the car was being used as a taxi.  In Vijay Kumar Digambarappa Khanpure Vs. Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, 2016 (2), CLT, 148, Hon’ble National Commission has held as under:-

          “8.     In my opinion, the use of a vehicle registered as a private car for, reward or hire cannot be said to be fundamental so as to entitle the insurer to wholly deny the benefit of the insurance to the insured in a case of accident.  This is not a case where the vehicle was plied on the road without fitness or registration.  Here there was no bar on using the vehicle at a public place, though having been registered as a private car it could not have been used as a taxi.  Had the insured got the vehicle registered and insured as a taxi, the insurer could have charged a higher premium but could not have refused to insure the vehicle.  The insurer in such a case is only deprived of the higher premium which it could have recovered had the vehicle been registered and insured as a taxi.  In my opinion, such a breach of the terms of the insurance policy cannot be said to be fundamental so as to permit the insurer to repudiate the claim in its entirety.  Therefore, the claim in such cases ought to be settled on a non-standard basis.”

6.      In view of law enunciated above, in case of violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the claim can be settled on non standard basis. 

7.      For the reasons recorded supra, the order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed.

8.      The complainant is directed to handover keys of the car, execute the letter of subrogation, transfer the Registration Certificate in the name of the Insurance Company and execute all other necessary documents required for the purpose.  Salvage would be retained by the Insurance Company.

9.      It is made clear that in case the complainant has availed loan facility from any financial institution(s), it shall have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by him (complainant).

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to The Oriental Insurance Company Limited against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

11.    Certified copy of this order be placed in the file of Appeal No.1101 of 2016.

 

Announced 30.08.2017

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK