03.03.2015- The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheet.
Heard the parties on limitation and merits.
2. On being satisfied with grounds the delay of about 62 days in filing this appeal is condoned.
3. On merits, Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance Company submitted that the insurance claim was rightly repudiated on the ground of violation of the terms of the policy with regard to limitation as to use of the vehicle in as much as three passengers were found travelling on the vehicle at the time of accident whereas the vehicle was goods carrier only. He further submitted that the surveyor’s report has not been challenged as per which the damages was assessed to the tune of Rs. 54,026/- but the total cost of repairing has been awarded by the learned District Forum. He further submitted that a very high amount of compensation and interest has been allowed by learned District Forum. He relied on the judgment reported in AIR (2007) SC 1563 National Insurance Company Vs Laxmi Narain Dhut and submitted that the case of own damages and 3rd party claim are different.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that this case is fully covered by the judgement reported in (1996) 4 SCC 647 B.V.Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
5. The learned District Forum after hearing the parties and considering their respective cases in detail, interalia held that on the instruction of the surveyor, appointed by the Insurance Company, the vehicle was repaired by the complainant at the authorized dealer Pratik Automobiles, for which the complainant paid Rs. 99,615/- as repairing cost but thereafter the claim was repudiated on 10.9.2008 on the said ground of violation of the terms of policy with regard to the use of vehicle.
Relying on the judgement of B.V.Nagaraju (Supra), it held that the Insurance Company was liable to pay the said repairing cost. According to the complainant the three labours (workmen) were travelling in the vehicle for loading and unloading of the goods.
The learned District Forum observed that it is normal to carry labour on the goods carrier vehicle to load and unload the goods and the labours cannot be held to be passengers. Moreover there was no evidence at all to show that the accident took place due to the labours travelling on the vehicle.
6. We find that there is nothing to show that the said persons travelling on the vehicle were passengers travelling for hire or reward.
7. In view of the judgemnt of B.V. Nagaraju (supra), it has to be held that the repudiation of claim in the present case was bad in law and the complainant is entitled to get the damage caused to the vehicle. The Insurance Company was expected to follow this judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
8. The insured value of the vehicle was Rs. 3,29,555/-. It appears that it was repaired on the instruction of the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company at the authorized dealer. The surveyor’s report was simply an assessment of the damages. The payment of repairing cost by the Complainant has not been disputed by the Insurance Company.
9. The judgment of National Insurance Company (supra) relied by Mr. Manish Kumar has no application in the present case.
10. However, we find some force in the alternative submission of Mr. Manish Kumar that the amount of compensation and rate of interest awarded by learned District Forum is on higher side. Accordingly we reduce the compensation to Rs. 15,000/- and interest to simple interest @ 9% p.a.
Only with these modification in the impugned order, this appeal stands disposed off.
Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.
Ranchi,
Dated:-03.03.2015
