Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur in consumer complaint No.103/1995.
The facts lie in narrow compass.
The respondent had purchased a Tempo-Trax by taking Bank loan. It was registered as MH-13/A-2205. It was mortgaged with the Bank. The respondent had taken comprehensive insurance policy from the appellant for the period 24/11/1993 to 23/11/1994. On 27/06/1994 while he was driving the vehicle on public road, rod of the steering wheel, all of a sudden broke down and the jeep dashed against the tree. It was the case of the complainant that at that time his 5-6 friends and acquaintances were with him. Because of accident, he was required to take the vehicle to the repairer. Repair bill was `1,18,000/-. He paid said bill and lodged the claim with the Insurance Company. The appellant/Insurance Company however, appointed an Investigator. The Investigator-Advocate Mrs.Savita Kulkarni reportedly recorded some statements including statement of owner who was injured and admitted in the hospital. The Injured and two other persons had told the Investigator that complainant had used the vehicle for hire and reward and on that ground the Insurance Company was pleased to repudiate the insurance claim and therefore, respondent/org. complainant filed consumer complaint. After contest, it was allowed and appellant was directed to pay the said bill amount by allowing the insurance claim as lodged by the complainant. Aggrieved by the award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, appellant/Insurance Company has come up in appeal.
We heard Mr.S.R. Singh, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Shivaji Ghadge, Son of respondent.
We perused the impugned judgement and award and the report of the Investigator. We are finding that though the owner of the vehicle had reported to the Investigator Mrs.Savita Kulkarni that he was using the vehicle for hire and reward, he had specifically stated that on that particular day when the accident took place, he was not plying the vehicle for hire and reward. On that date, when he was driving the vehicle on public road, rod of the steering wheel, all of a sudden broke down and the jeep dashed against the tree and accident occurred and he suffered damages for which he was required to spend `1,18,000/- as repair charges.
It was tried to be contended by Advocate Mr.S.R. Singh for the appellant that since the respondent himself had given statement to the Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company that he used to ply the vehicle for hire and reward, the Insurance Company was right in repudiating the claim since there was breach of condition of policy and there was fundamental breach of law. In as much as under Section 66 of Motor Vehicles Act, no person is authorised or permitted to use the vehicle for any other purpose than the purpose for which it was registered and for which he had paid necessary taxes. In this case, the vehicle was registered as private vehicle and he was not supposed to carry passengers on hire and thereby he contravened Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
However, we are not inclined to buy this argument of Advocate Mr.Singh for the Insurance Company. The respondent stated in his statement recorded by the Investigator Advocate Mrs.Kulkarni that on that particular day, he had not used the vehicle for hire and reward and he was going with some of his friends and acquaintances when the accident took place. So, acting upon this statement which has been recorded by the investigator herself, we are of the view that the Insurance Company should pay the bill at least on ‘Non-Standard Basis’. As such, we direct the Insurance Company to pay 75% of the insurance claim lodged by the respondent and as such, we are inclined to allow the appeal partly to give this much relief to the Insurance Company. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal is partly allowed.
2. Appellant/Insurance Company is directed to pay 75% of the insurance claim lodged upon them by the respondent/org. complainant besides `5,000/- towards costs of this appeal.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 27th June 2011.
