09-10-2014- The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheet.

1.       Heard, the parties on the point of limitation.

2.        On being satisfied with the grounds, the delay of about three months in filing this appeal is condoned.

3.        Heard the parties on merit.

When this appeal was taken up on 14.03.2014 Mr. D.C. Ghosh learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the claim of the complainant/respondent was repudiated as he did not reply to the letters asking for certain explanations and documents. He therefore submitted that if the complainant cooperates, his claimed can be examined.

4.        On behalf of the respondent it was submitted that no such letter was received and more over the required documents were already given to the Insurance Company.

5.        However, the complainant was directed to reply the letter dated 24.09.2007 and also send the relevant documents to the Insurance Company, and, if any further explanations/documents are required, the complainant was directed to furnish the same. The Insurance Company was directed to consider the claim and take a final decision.

6.        Mr. D.C. Ghosh submitted that thereafter, the claim was considered and has been repudiated on the ground that the insured vehicle had capacity of one person as per the certificate of registration  but as per the FIR one employee/labour was also being carried on the vehicle which amounted to gross violation of the terms of the policy. Mr. Ghosh also submitted that the insured vehicle was a Three Wheeler and if any other person was being carried in the vehicle, the chances of accident was very high. And therefore it is possible that the accident took place due to carrying an employee/labour in the insured vehicle. He relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Rajasthan State Consumer Forum, reported in IV (2010) CPJ 155. He lastly submitted that at best the loss assessed by the surveyor i.e. Rs. 37,185/- could be allowed by the lower forum. He also submitted that very high amount of compensation and very high rate of interest has been awarded by learned Lower Forum.

7.        On the other hand, Mr. Ashutosh Anand learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted as follows. As per the FIR one labour was being carried on the insured vehicle and when the insured vehicle was dashed by a Tractor, the said labour-Sunil Saw got injured. The FIR was lodged by the driver of the insured vehicle. He did not receive any injury. There is nothing to show that Sunil Saw was sharing the seat of the driver. He supported the judgement under appeal.

8.        In our opinion, the judgement of excessive overloading relied by Mr. Ghosh [IV (2010) CPJ 155] is of no help to the Insurance Company. In the present case, according to the FIR, the insured vehicle was dashed by a tractor. There is nothing to show, that due to carrying one labour on the vehicle, the accident took place.  At best it is a case of violation of the condition of the policy. In view of the judgement reported in IV  (2008)  CPJ  1  (SC)  National Insurance  Co. LTD -Vs- Nitin Khandalwal, the claim to the extent of 75% of the insured value i.e. Rs. 76,200/- could be allowed, but as the claimant has claimed only Rs. 56,561/- being the cost of repairs, we uphold the claim to this extent. The genuineness of the Bills/Cash memos/ receipts of the said expenses of repairs were not in dispute.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to interfere with the amount of claim, compensation and rate of interest, awarded by the judgement under appeal. However we extend the time to pay. Accordingly the appellant is directed to pay Rs. 1,11,651/- (Rs. 56,651/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs. 5,000/) to the claimant within sixty days of this order, failing which,  the appellant will also be liable to pay simple interest @ 18% P.A. on the said amount from the date of this order till the date of payment/realization.

 With these observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed off.

             Let the statutory amount, be returned to the appellant within four weeks. 

                         Ranchi,

                        Dated: 09-10-2014