FA 868/2008 against CC No. 103 of 2006 on the file of the

District Forum, Kadapa

Between :

Y. Vijaya Bhasker Reddy

S/o Anthony Reddy, aged 41 years

Bus owner, R/o D. No. 21/78, Dwaraka Town

Kadapa                                                                     .. Appellant/complainant

And

1.                  United India Insurance Company Ltd

Rep. by its Branch Manager

Branch Office, 7 Roads, Kadapa.

2.                  United India Insurance Company Ltd

Rep. by its Divisional Manager,

Divisional officer,

Dhobighat Road, Opp. Official Club

Kadapa                           .. Respondents/Opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant                        :           M/s. Indus Law Firm

Counsel for the Respondents                :           M/s. R. Brizmohan Singh

Coram           ;           Sri Syed Abdullah              …        Hon’ble Member

And

Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao…      Hon’ble Member

Monday, the Twelfth Day of July, Two Thousand Ten

Oral Order     :           ( As per Sri Syed Abdullah,  Hon’ble Member )

*******

The unsuccessful complainant in C. C. 103/2006 before the District Forum, Kadapa preferred this appeal questioning the legality and propriety of the order in dismissing the insurance claim covered by the policy  issued in respect of passenger bus bearing No.  AP 04 T : 9393 which met with an accident  on 10.02.2006. 

The facts of the case disclose that the complainant is the owner  of the bus bearing No. AP 04T 9393 and the said vehicle was insured with  R-1 under Comprehensive Insurance Policy  bearing No. 050904/31/4/0100005122 which was  valid from 31.3.2005 to 30.03.2006. The said bus was also hired to APSRTC under an agreement dated 01.10.2005.  While so, the said bus met with an accident causing extensive damage to the bus and also some passengers sustained injuries. A case was registered as Cr. No. 01/2006 by the  concerned police.  On intimation,  the insurance company appointed a surveyor who inspected it and the surveyor expressed its total loss for which consent was taken from the complainant for payment of a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs  to be paid  in total.   The Insurance claim is to be settled  within 15 days but the opposite party  failed to settle the claim  which amounts to negligence and deficiency in service. The complainant sustained loss of  Rs.43,000/-. Hence sought for a direction  for payment of Rs. 4 lakhs towards insurance amount, Rs.50,000/- towards damages, an additional compensation of Rs.45,000/-  with costs.

Resisting the claim, the second opposite party filed a counter  which was adopted by R-1 stating that  the policy was taken under Passengers Carrying Commercial Vehicle Policy.  The complainant had to prove  that the accident had taken place by producing necessary documents.  The complainant has entered in to an agreement with  the APSRTC, Kadapa for hiring of the bus from 01.10.2005 subsequent to the issuance of the policy.  It was not brought to the notice of the opposite party  about the hiring of the bus.  The complainant had to pay additional premium of 1.05% on the insured vehicle  as per the Indian Motor Tariff No. 44 which directs payment of additional  premium of 1.05% on the insured value so as to indemnify the loss.  As the complainant failed to pay the additional premium, the opposite parties are not liable to pay the amount and that the vehicle was under the custody and control of the third party at the time of the accident. The repudiation was done as per the rules. So it cannot be said that  there was any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

During the enquiry, the complainant filed evidence affidavit along with a copy of the insurance policy Ex. A-1 and Ex. A-2 hire agreement  entered into with APSRTC hiring the insured bus.  Ex. A-3 is the copy of the FIR dated 10.02.2006 on the information about the accident of the bus. The opposite parties have  not filed any documents on their side.

After going though the evidence on record and hearing the contentions, the District Forum held ahtat  as per the terms and conditions of Ex. A-1 policy the insured is not entitled  for compensation  since  the vehicle was used or driven otherwise than in accordance with the conditions mentioned in the schedule.  Apart from it, the injured had not paid  additional premium as per the Indian Motor Tariff No. 44 and that the complainant failed to bring it to the notice of the Insurance Company that the vehicle was hired to APSRTC by entering into an Hire agreement, as such, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

Point for consideration is, whether the impugned order suffers from any factual and legal infirmity or  whether the appellant/complainant is entitled for the premium  under the terms and conditions of Ex. A-1 policy.

Undisputedly, the vehicle was insured under Ex. A-1 policy  and the policy was issued  under the category of Passengers Carrying Commercial Vehicle Policy and the conditions stipulated in it  are that the use of the vehicle  is only under permit within the meaning of Sec. 66(3) of M. V. Act of the definition of ‘ carriage ‘ falling under the aforesaid section.  Evidently  by the date of accident the vehicle was under hire agreement with the APSRTC and the said hire was subsequent to the obtaining of the policy.  Ex. A-1 policy conditions stipulates  that the bus is to be used  or plied   by obtaining necessary permit as ‘ carriage vehicle ‘  but not as  ‘commercial  transport vehicle’ .  Thus, there is a violation of terms and conditions  of Ex. A-1 policy.   The complainant could have informed to the insurance company that subsequent to the  obtaining of Ex. A-1policy, the bus was hired to  APSRTC  on monthly rent  and that the policy may be converted as commercial contract carriage to avail the benefits under the policy in the event of any accident. Admittedly, the complainant failed to inform to the Insurance Company.  Had it been informed, the Insurance Company would have insisted the complainant to pay additional premium  of 1.05%  on the insured amount so as to extend the benefit of the policy. There is violation of the policy conditions and as well additional premium was not paid  as required under Indian Motor Tariff no. 44 which dis-entitles the complainant to seek for the insurance claim.  in view of the violation of non-payment of additional premium of 1.05%  on the insured amount, the Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim. The District Forum in right perspective has come to a just and reasonable conclusion  and that there are no reasonable grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum, Kadapa dated 26.03.2007.  There is no order as to costs.

                                                                                                                                                                        Sd/-MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                                        Sd/-MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                                        DATED :        12.07.2010.