Aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2009 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in First Appeal No.1492 of 2009, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. – opposite party in the complaint has filed the present petition in order to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Commission under section 21-B of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. The consumer dispute related to the non – settlement of an insurance claim lodged by the complainant insured who had insured his motor vehicle, Eicher Canter which met with an accident and was damaged. Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company assessed the net loss at Rs.70,000/- though the complainant claimed to have spent a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- on its repairs. The claim was repudiated mainly on the ground that the complainant had committed violation of the terms & conditions of the insurance policy inasmuch as at the relevant time when the vehicle in question met with an accident, it was carrying certain passengers besides the goods, although the vehicle was registered only as a goods vehicle with the motor vehicle authorities. The District Forum had repelled that contention and allowed the claim of the complainant in the sum of Rs.61,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company filed the appeal before the State Commission but without any success. Still not satisfied, the Insurance Company has approached this Commission. 3. We have heard Mr. Sameer Nandwani, learned counsel for the petitioner – Insurance Company and Mr. Anil Hooda for the respondent and have considered their submissions. Once again, the counsel for the Insurance Company wants to assail the order passed by the fora below on the ground that there has been a glaring violation of the terms & conditions of the policy which will disentitle the complainant insured for any claim under the insurance policy. In support of his case, he heavily relies upon a decision of this Commission in the case of Jagdeesh Singh vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [III (2007) CPJ 160 (NC)]. 4. Despite repeated opportunities granted to the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company has failed to bring on record the Registration Certificate of the vehicle as also the insurance policy and, therefore, adverse inference is liable to be drawn against it. In the circumstances, we have to answer these proceedings based on material existing on record. Going by the averments made by the complainant and there being no dispute that the insured vehicle is registered as a goods vehicle under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules framed thereunder and that at the relevant time, it was used for transporting the vegetables and certain persons to whom the vegetables belonged were also traveling in the same vehicle , we are of the view that the objection raised by the Insurance Company was not tenable and consequently the ground on which the claim has been repudiated was not justified. 5. In our view, having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances, the orders passed by the fora below appear to be justified and do not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity which calls for interference of this Commission. We, therefore, dismiss the petition, however, with the observation that this decision is being rendered on the facts and circumstances of the present case and will not constitute a precedent. |
