ORDER NO. 4 DT. 14.2.11

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. P.K.SAMANTA, PRESIDENT

Appellant through Mr. Pralay Kar and the Respondent through Mr. Anup Kr. Biswas, Ld. Advocates, are present.  Heard both sides at length.  Judgement is passed as under :-

This Appeal is by the insurer against the judgement dt. 29.7.10 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata, in CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 230 of 2007. 

Admittedly the dealer is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, which is running its business as an authorized dealer of Tata Motors Ltd. for selling Tata-make vehicles.  For the purpose of its business the complainant company insured a Tata-make Indica LXI V2 car bearing particular chassis and engine numbers with effect from 30.9.01 till 29.9.02 against I.E. Value of Rs. 4,50,000/-.  It is also not in dispute that upon such insurance of the said vehicle insurance premium for a sum of Rs. 5,254/- was paid by the insured to the insurer.  It is also not in dispute that during the said insurance coverage of the aforesaid vehicle in question the same caught fire on 30.6.02 while the said vehicle was proceeding towards Asansol at a place near about Kajora bridge at about 11 a.m.  In such fire the vehicle was fully burnt and got totally destroyed.  The insurance claim raised by the complainant was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the plea that the accident occurred at a place beyond 80 km from the office of the complainant company and as per I.M.T. Endorsement No. 61 forming part of an attachment to the policy schedule, a damage insurance claim has to be within a radius of 80 km from the insured’s address as stated in the schedule thereto. 

The claim case has been allowed by the Forum below upon finding that the policy schedule containing the aforesaid I.M.T. endorsement stipulating such clause has not been proved to had been served upon the insured at the time of taking the aforesaid insurance policy in respect of the vehicle in question.  At the hearing of this Appeal also the Appellant has conceded before us that there is no material whatsoever to prove that the said policy schedule containing the I.M.T. Endorsement No. 61 was served upon the insured at the time of taking the insurance coverage of the vehicle in question.  In the absence of such material evidence we are unable to hold that the finding so made by the District Forum was wrong.

However, at the hearing of this Appeal two points have been seriously urged on behalf of the Appellant.  From the Annexure-B to the complaint it has been pointed out that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant company on 28.11.01 at a price of Rs. 3,45,590/- from its manufacturer namely Tata Motors Ltd., under Invoice No. 635787 whereas the said insurance policy was taken for cover of a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- for the period from 30.9.01 till 29.9.02.  It has, therefore, been argued that the insurance coverage was more than the price of the car and for the period  from the date prior to the date of purchase of the vehicle in question.

The insurance coverage of the vehicle in question with particular chassis and engine numbers has not been disputed.  Rather, it has been categorically admitted that the car, which was burnt and completely destroyed in an accident fire, was with the particular chassis and engine numbers for which the insurance policy was taken.  If that be so, it is immaterial whether the insurance coverage was taken for a sum more than the actual price of the car or for the period starting from a date prior to the date of delivery of the car to the complainant.  It is for the insurer to decide whether it would insure a car for a sum more than the value of the car or for the period prior to the date on which the insured took possession of the same.  It is not the case of the insurer that such coverage was obtained by the insured by practising fraud.  With the views as above and more particularly, the fact remaining that the vehicle in question got damaged during the insurance coverage of the same, the insurer would be liable under the insurance policy for the sum for which the coverage was issued by the insurance company itself irrespective of the actual price of the car and the date from which it had started operating.

For the reasons as aforesaid we do not find any material to interfere with the impugned judgement and the same is accordingly upheld.  The Appeal is thus dismissed.