Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/94/2021

1. Branch Manager, oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Thiruvarur Branch, And 2 others. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. K. Arumugam, S/o. Krishnasamy, Manjakollai, Nagapattinam District. And another - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. NAGESHWARAN & NARICHANIA

22 Feb 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  :     PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R  VENKATESAPERUMAL           :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 94 of 2021

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.24 of 2015 dated 26.03.2021 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Nagapattinam.

 

Wednesday, the 22nd day of February 2023

 

1.  The Branch Manager

     Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,

     Thiruvarur Branch.

 

2.  The Divisional Manager

     Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,

     Divisional Office,

     Pondicherry.

 

3.  The Regional Manager

     Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,

     Regional Office,

     Chennai.                                                      .. Appellants/ Opposite Parties 1 to 3

 

- Vs –

 

1.  K. Arumugam

     S/o. Krishnasamy

     No.3/112 Main Road

     Manjakollai

     Nagapattinam District.                                  ..  1^st Respondent/ Complainant

2.  The Branch Manager

     Punjab National Bank 

     Sembiyanmahadevi Branch                            .. 2nd Respondent/  4^th Opposite Party

   

 

  Counsel for Appellants/

                Opposite parties 1 to 3       :  M/s.Nageswaran & Narichania 

  Counsel for 1^st Respondent/Complainant    :  M/s.Nedunchezhian                                                                

  Counsel for the 2nd Respondent/

4th opposite party      :  Notice served

 

        This appeal came before us for final hearing today, on 22.02.2023 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellants and the counsel for the 1^st respondent, and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

 

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT [Open Court]

 

        1.     This appeal has been filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as against the order dated 26.03.2021          passed in C.C. No.24 of 2015 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagapattinam allowing the complaint filed by the 1^st respondent herein, in part.   

               2.  The Appellants herein are the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 and the 1^st Respondent is the Complainant.  The 2nd Respondent is the 4^th opposite party.  For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as per their ranking before the District Commission.

 

               3.   The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased a Harvester Combine Motor, by availing loan from Punjab National Bank/4^th Opposite party.  The said Harvester was insured by the complainant with the New India Assurance Company Ltd., under Policy No.72110331110100008466 covering the period from 27.02.2012 to 26.02.2013.  On expiry of the said policy, the 4^th opposite party/Bank from whom the complainant had availed loan insisted the complainant to renew the policy.  Since the complainant accepted for the same, the 1^st opposite party issued an insurance coverage for the period 08.04.2013 to 07.04.2014 under Policy No.413902/31/2014/237 and the 1^st opposite party collected a sum of Rs.19,250/-.  Subsequently, the said policy was renewed for a further period from 08.04.2014 to 07.04.2015 under Policy No.413902/31/2015/102. The said Harvester Combine Motor met with an accident on 22.04.2014 at Kullakkal Village, Karnataka State.  The said accident was immediately informed to the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party deputed a Surveyor to assess the loss.  The Surveyor after assessing the loss, filed a report to the 1^st opposite party.  As per the instructions of the 1^st opposite party, the vehicles were taken to the authorised dealer to repair, who effected the repair and charged a sum of Rs.3,55,678/-.  All the original bills furnished by the authorised dealer were submitted by the complainant along with the claim form to the 1^st opposite party.  But there was no response from the 1^st opposite party.  Hence, the complainant repeatedly contacted the 1^st opposite party for reimbursement, as per the terms of contract of Insurance.  After repeated demands, the 1^st opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant by its letter dated 10.12.2014 on a reasoning that there are violation of policy conditions and that the Harvester should not be used for commercial purposes.  The repudiation of the claim of the complainant is illegal.  The Harvester Combine Motor was purchased by the complainant not only for personal use but also for hiring for profitable purpose.  While availing loan from the 4^th opposite party it has been specifically informed that the Harvester will be put for hiring or rent and from out of the income alone the loan amount will have to be repaid.  After exchange of correspondences also, the claim of the complainant was not considered by the opposite parties.  Hence, the complainant has come forward with a complaint as against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, seeking the following directions to the opposite parties:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.3,55,678/- being the cost of repair charges spent by the complainant;
2. To pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant; and
3. To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation.

 

 

               4.   Resisting the case of the complainant, the opposite parties have filed a version.  The opposite parties admit that the Harvester Combine of the complainant was insured with them, however, any claim is subject to such exclusions, conditions and other terms stipulated in the policy.  Immediately on intimation from the complainant, the opposite parties arranged a licensed surveyor to inspect and assess the actual loss caused to the said Harvester.  On receipt of the surveyor’s report, the documents and the claim forms submitted by the complainant along with the driver’s statement, were scrutinised and the claim of the complainant was repudiated as there was violation of policy condition relating to the use of the Harvester.  The policy condition prohibits the use of the Harvester Combine for hire or reward.  The parties to the contract are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy.  Taking insurance coverage for the Harvester Combine is compulsory under the Motor Vehicles Act.   The opposite parties deny the allegation that while taking the policy they were informed of the fact of putting the Harvester Combine for commercial activities.  Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

               5.  In order to prove the case, along with proof affidavit, the complainant has filed 10 documents, which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A10.  On the side of the opposite parties, they have filed 5 documents, which were marked as Exhibits B1  to B5.

 

               6.  The District Forum after analyzing the evidence filed on the records, had come to a conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in not settling the claim of the complainant and directed them to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards repairing charges of the Harvester Combine with interest @ 9% p.a from 29.09.2014 till realization, Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.15,000/- as cost to the complainant. 

 

               7.  There is no representation for the 2^nd respondent/ 4^th opposite party.  Heard the counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties 1 to 3 and the 1^st respondent/complainant, and perused the material available on record.

 

               8.  Now the present Appeal has been filed by the opposite parties 1 to 3, contending that the policy issued by the Appellants/Opposite parties 1 to 3, is strictly governed by the various policy terms and conditions forming part of the policy.  The repudiation of the claim was only after proper appreciation of various documents along with the policy terms and conditions.  The policy issued by the Appellants/Opposite parties 1 to 3 specifically excludes the use of Harvester Combine for commercial purpose.  But at the time of accident, the Harvester Combine was used for commercial purposes.  Hence, the repudiation of the claim was proper and in accordance with the policy terms and conditions and thus sought for setting aside the order of the District Forum.

 

               9.  Be that as it may, we are of the opinion, the very purpose of purchasing the Harvester Combine is only for agricultural operations.  When the dominant intention of the complainant for purchasing the Harvester Combine is for commercial purpose for carrying on agricultural operations, the defence projected by the opposite parties that at the time of accident the Harvester Combine was used for commercial purpose, cannot be accepted.  Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum.  However, we feel that after awarding Rs.2,00,000/- towards repairing charges, awarding another sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for mental agony appears to be on the higher side. Hence, Rs.1,50,000/- is reduced to Rs.50,000/-.  Similarly, the sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the District Forum towards the cost of litigation is hereby reduced to Rs.5000/-. 

 

               10.  In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part. The interest granted @ 9% p.a on Rs.2,00,000/- being the repairing charges from 29.09.2014 till realization, is reduced to that of 7.5%, the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-  awarded towards compensation for mental agony and hardship is reduced to Rs.50,000/- and the sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded towards the cost of litigation is hereby reduced to Rs.5000/-.  Except the above modifications, the order dated 26.03.2021 passed in C.C. No.24 of 2015 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagapattinam, remains unaltered.   Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed .

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

 

R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                           R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/February/2023