DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No.143 of 13.5.2008 Decided on : 23.9.2008 <br /> <br /> Sarabjit Kaur W/o Ashwinder Singh R/o House No. B-14/2324, Street No. 12, Sekha Road, Barnala, District Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Bathinda through its Branch Manager.<br /> 2.ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, East Mumbai through its Managing Director.<br /> 3.ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No. 174-175, Sector 9, Chandigarh now shifted to SCO 214, Sector 14, Panchkula through its Branch Manager.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> Sh. T.N Vaidya, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Lalit Garg, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg, Advocate <br /> <br /> O R D E R. <br /> <br /> T.N VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Claim of the complainant to insured vehicle bearing registration No. PB-13Q-7500 insured vide cover note No. PE 4155288 dated 30.1.2007 valid from 30.1.2007 to 29.1.2008 was repudiated on the ground that policy of the vehicle was taken for personal use, but in violation was being used for commercial purposes. This action of repudiation of the claim vide letter dated 1.10.2007 has been challenged to be illegal, null and void by way of presenting the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.<br /> 2. Case of the complainant is that his vehicle unfortunately met with an accident in collision with truck bearing registration No. PB-05M-6769 between Tapa to Rampura Phool on 31.7.2007. The vehicle was damaged for which D.D.R No. 12 dated 2.8.2007 was registered. Intimation was given to the opposite parties and on their advice, vehicle was brought to the workshop at Barnala, where it was inspected by Surveyor Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal of the opposite parties, who assessed the loss to the vehicle. Complainant got repaired the vehicle by spending approximately Rs.1,50,000/- and bills were submitted to opposite parties. Opposite parties wrongfully and illegally repudiated the claim. Hence, complainant is entitled to the amount spent on repair alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.11,000/-.<br /> 3. Opposite parties vide their reply pleaded that claim of the complainant is false and frivolous. The vehicle was being used for commercial purposes in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Complainant as such has no locus-standi to file the complaint. So complainant consequently denied to be consumer. Opposite parties averred that on receipt of accidental report, Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal, Surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss of Rs.60,496/- vide his report dated 2.10.2007. Sh. A.P Singh, Investigator was appointed who conducted enquiry and reported that the vehicle at the time of accident was being used for hire and reward. By hiring the vehicle to Nirmala Devi, the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes. So opposite parties rightly and legally repudiated the claim vide letter dated 1.10.2007.<br /> 4. Both parties adduced evidence and stood heard through respective counsel.<br /> 5. Admitted facts are that vehicle of the complainant was insured with the opposite parties vide cover note Ex.C.2. After it met with an accident, D.D.R No. 12 dated 2.8.2007 in Police Station Rampura, copy of which is Ex.C.3, was registered. Intimation of loss was given to the opposite parties and complainant brought the vehicle to the workshop of Mistri Sieera Denter, Barnala where it was inspected by Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal Surveyor engaged by the opposite parties. The Surveyor Mr. Aggarwal submitted his report Ex.R.12. Thereafter, opposite parties engaged services of Investigator Sh. A.P Singh and on his report Ex.R.5 repudiated the claim vide letter Ex.R.11.<br /> 6. As such, repudiation is simply on the ground that vehicle at the time of accident was being used for commercial purposes though policy was obtained for personal use.<br /> 7. Consequently matter for our consideration is as to whether due to such usage of hiring the vehicle to some other person, complainant was guilty of committing fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. We are taking such matter, at the defence of the opposite parties, without going into the merit of the defence.<br /> 8. Where a personal vehicle is insured by a owner with Insurance Company for personal use but was found being run as Taxi, the same was concluded not amounting to fundamental breach of the policy by the Hon'ble State Commission of Punjab in United India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Amarjit Singh-2007(1)CPC-541. In that case, vehicle was used as a Taxi and the same was held not a ground to repudiate the claim.<br /> 9. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Skendia Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kokilapen Chandracavadan-1987(2)SCC-654 had an occasion to construe the term fundamental breach of the insurance policy. Such like breach was held not amounting to fundamental breach of the insurance policy.<br /> 10. In these circumstances, we are clear that repudiation of the claim by opposite parties on the ground that there was fundamental breach of the policy when complainant hired his vehicle to Nirmala Devi, a passenger, is not tenable, because if vehicle was being used as a Taxi or personal use, it would not amount to fundamental breach of the insurance policy. Purpose of the insurance of a vehicle is to compensate the insured qua the loss suffered by the vehicle in an accident. Hence, fundamental purpose of the policy is to protect the interest of the insured. So repudiation of the claim is unjustified and consequently, complainant is entitled to the compensation as assessed by Surveyor Sh. Aggarwal vide his report Ex.R.12. Report of Surveyor and Valuer Assessor is a highly respected document until and unless there are reasons to ignore the same. He has assessed the loss of Rs.60,496/- payable to the insured as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, we allow the complaint and consequently, direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.60,496/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In peculiar circumstances, we do not allow compensation and costs.<br /> <br /> Pronounced <br /> 23.9.2008 (T.N Vaidya)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member <br /> 'bsg'