ORDER

(Passed on  26/03/2021)

PER SHRI.ATUL D. ALSI , HON’BLE PRESIDENT.

             The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against repudiation of his own damage insurance claim for the reason of breach of terms and conditions of the policy by carrying excessive passengers in the vehicle.

2.         The story in short is that the complainant Shri.Jaiprakash Singh S/o Rajbali Singh,  is an Electrical Contractor who undertakes contracts for Maharashtra State Electric Distribution Company. For this purpose he has established a huge office and is carrying on business by employing a large skilled, unskilled and supervisory staff including drivers. The complainant purchased a commercial goods carriage Tata 407 L.M. vehicle in the year 2015 for carrying goods for his contractor ship. The vehicle was registered with RTO, Chandrapur bearing Registration No.MH 34, AV 0449 for carrying goods and the same vehicle was insured with the OP No.1 Insurance company vide policy bearing No.P00162000024/4103/100239 for the period between 19/10/2015 to 18/10/2016 against Insured Value Rs.6,25,507/-. On 9/4/2016 at about 7.30 p.m., while returning to Chandrapur, the said vehicle dashed against a stationary truck and in the accident sustained damages. In the accident, the driver of the vehicle Vinod died and two others were injured. In the result, an offence U/s 279, 337,338 & 304-A came to be registered against the driver of the complainant’s vehicle on 10/4/2016 at Police Station, Rajura, Distt.Chandrapur. The intimation of the accident was given to the OP Insurance Company and a surveyor was appointed by the Company to investigate and submit the report. Thereafter, the vehicle was sent for repairs to the workshop of OP No.2. Thereafter the complainant filed Insurance claim with relevant documents with the OP Insurance Company. However, the claim was repudiated by the OP No.1 Insurance Company vide letter dated 24/3/2017 for the reason of breach of terms of policy by carrying excessive passengers. The repudiation amounts to deficiency in service hence the complainant has filed instant complaint praying for replacement of the vehicle alongwith grant of compensation of Rs.10,96,000/- on various counts besides Rs.1 lac for mental torture with interest.

3          The complaint is admitted and notices were served on the OP Nos.1 & 2. The OP Nos.1 filed its reply and thereby denied allegations, but admitted the issuance of vehicle insurance policy in question. However they submitted that in the FIR filed by the complainant at P.S. Rajura,besides driver Vinod Bhasakar Karpenwar, following persons were travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident 1. Shri.Santosh Narayan Shende, 2. Subhash Singh, 3. Gidham Dhanuka, 4. Vishal Pendor, 5. Vinod Sin 6. Subhash Ravidas & 7. Pravin Kumare. All the persons sustained grievous injuries and hence were admitted to hospital at Rajura where driver Vinod was declared dead on arrival. The pick up vehicle had a permit to carry only 1 + 2 passengers as per registration certificate and also as per policy terms. However, at the relevant time of accident, the vehicle was carrying 1+ 7 i.e. in all 8 passengers in violation of RTO rules as well as policy conditions.

4.         The OP No.1 further contended in its reply that after due investigation, an offence U/s 279,337,338 & 304-A for rash and negligent driving was registered against the erring driver of the complainants vehicle at P.S.Rajura vide FIR No.162/18. Hence there being clear cut breach of policy conditions, repudiation of claim vide letter dated 24/03/2017 is justified and does not amount to negligence in service on the part of OP No. 1 and as such the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

5.       The OP No.2 Jayka Automobiles also filed its reply and submitted that the vehicle was brought to their workshop for repairs and after its due inspection a quotation for expenditure likely to be incurred on its repairs was given to the complainant. They have no role to play in the insurance contract in between complainant and OP No.1 insurance company neither they indulge in any deficient service, and as such, they prayed for  dismissal of the complaint as against OP No.2.

6.                   The counsel for the complainant failed to submit notes of arguments inspite of granting of several opportunities. Hence the case proceeded further.

7.         Counsel for OP No.1 Insurance company argued that the vehicle in question was Light Motor Commercial Vehicle and as per registration certificate and also as per the policy terms and conditions was permitted to carry only 1+2 passengers. However, at the relevant time of accident, as per police record 1 + 7 passengers were being carried in the vehicle and further the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the complainant and accordingly, the crime came to be registered as against the erring driver of the complainant’s vehicle. Further the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. Therefore, the repudiation of his insurance claim is valid and no interference is called for.

8.                   The counsel for the OP No.2 Jayka Automobiles argued that after the accident, the vehicle was brought for repairs and necessary quotation for its repairs was given by it. The OP No.2 has no role to play in respect of honoring or dishonoring the insurance claim and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed as against OP No.2.

                                                REASONING

9.              The complainant has filed copy of the FIR bearing No.162/18 at Exh.4 page 8. As per FIR and final investigation report of P.S.Rajura, Distt.Chandrapur there were 7 passengers besides the driver at the time of accident in complainants vehicle against the permissible limit of 1+2 only. There being excessive passengers travelling in the vehicle at the relevant time of accident, there is a clear cut breach of policy terms and conditions of the policy and also of registration rules of the RTO copy of which is filed at Exh.4 bearing serial no. 17 & 14 respectively.  It is also pertinent to note that the accident accrued due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of complainant as his vehicle rammed into a stationery truck and an offence U/s 279, 337,338 & 304-A came to be registered against the erring driver of the complainant’s vehicle vide FIR No.162/18.  Hence the driver of complainant is responsible for the accrual of accident. In view of these observations, we have no hesitation to hold the repudiation of claim by the OP No.1 insurance fully justified and we don’t see any deficiency in service on their part. In the result, the complaint measurably fails on merit.  

10.           In view of our observation supra, we pass the following

Final order

1.      The Complaint No.26/2018 is dismissed.

2.      Parties to bear their own costs.

3.      Copy of the order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.

 (Smt.KalpanaJangade(Kute)  (Smt.KirtiVaidya (Gadgil)  (Shri.Atul D.Alsi)

               Member                             Member                             President