JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant is the registered owner of a Scorpio vehicle with registration No. CG18K-4184, which was insured with Opposite Party No. 1, an Insurance Company, for the period of 10.06.2015 to 09.06.2016, after paying a premium of Rs. 37,564/-. The sum assured under the Policy was Rs. 8,21,711/-. On 06.02.2016, while the vehicle was in the custody of the Superintendent of Police, Bijapur along with the DIG CRPF, it was being operated by CRPF drivers, en route from Jagdalpur to Jagodpur.  Around 11 p.m., two fighting bulls suddenly appeared in front of the vehicle.  In an attempt to avoid a collision, the driver swerved the vehicle to the side, but lost control and crashed into a bridge.  Unfortunately, the driver and one occupant died, while others sustained serious injuries. The Insurance Company was promptly informed about the incident for claim processing.  A Surveyor was appointed, who conducted a survey of the damaged vehicle.  The Complainant was directed to take the damaged vehicle to Balaji Motors in Jagdalpur, which  provided  an estimate  of Rs. 7,45,809/- for repairs. After submitting all necessary documents, a final survey was conducted by the Surveyor, who determined that the vehicle had suffered a total loss and was beyond repair. However, the insurance claim was repudiated on the ground that the vehicle had been provided to the CRPF for commercial use without the required commercial permit, violating the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and the terms of the Insurance Policy. Aggrieved with the repudiation of the claim, the Complainant filed his complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Bastar at Jagdalpur. 

3. The District Forum vide its Order dated 28.10.2017 dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved with the Order of the District Forum, the Complainant/Respondent No. 1 filed Appeal before the Ld. State Commission, which vide the impugned Order dated 12.02.2018 partly allowed the same, and set-aside the Order of the District Forum which dismissed the complaint. 

 

4. This Commission has heard both the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner and Respondents, and perused the material available on record.

5. Admittedly, the vehicle in question had been insured as a ‘Private’ one.  But it was requisitioned by the State through the Collector of District Bijapur, and was placed by the Superintendent of Police of that District, at the disposal of the CRPF for Law & Order duties, and during the course of such duty, it met with an accident, in which the CRPF driver also died. To that extent, the Insurance Company cannot be faulted for repudiation of the claim, since, as a consequence of the vehicle’s requisitioning, the Complainant/Insured became entitled to reimbursement for its user of the vehicle in accordance with the Rules, and so the same could not have been considered to be for ‘private use’ at the time of accident. Further, admittedly the Complainant had no privity of Contract whatsoever with the CRPF, who were using his vehicle, since the same had been placed at their disposal by the Orders of the District Collector/Superintendent of Police, who had requisitioned it. So, it was the requisitioning Authority/State which became vicariously liable to compensate the Complainant for the damage to his vehicle, for which he was in no position to seek the claim for Insurance, since the nature of user of the vehicle was not exactly ’personal or private’, when it met with the accident. It is nobody’s case that the Complainant had voluntarily offered his vehicle to the State for being used in Law & Order duties. On the other hand, he was constrained to deliver the same in view of the Order of its requisition, which, being an ordinary citizen, he was in no position to avoid.

6. Now the record goes to show that the State of Chhattisgarh was represented by the Collector, as also the Superintendent of Police, District Bijapur, who were also  the Opposite Parties in the original Complaint, and who did not contest the proceedings before either the Ld. District Forum or the State Commission. Even before this Commission, the State of Chhattisgarh, and the Superintendent of Police, who have been arraigned as Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 entered appearance only once on 14.01.2019, but never took any further steps again for the next 5 years, nor filed any Written Submissions/Arguments from their side.

7. Consequently, in view of the observations put on record in the preceding paragraphs, this Commission finds merit in the submission raised on behalf of the Petitioner/ Director General  of the CRPF, that it is in no way responsible to compensate the Complainant/Respondent No. 1, with whom it had no privity of Contract. On the other hand, the responsibility for such compensation logically would come upon the concerned Officers of the State of Chhattisgarh, who had requisitioned the vehicle for use in Law and Order duties, under their Official Authority.

8. The Revision Petition is therefore allowed by modifying the impugned Order and directing that liability to compensate the Complainant shall not extend to the present Petitioner/DG CRPF, but shall remain confined jointly and severally only to the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, being the Superintendent of Police, and the District Collector of the District of Bijapur, Chhattisgarh, who shall now pay the amount as well as interest awarded by the Ld. State Commission to the Complainant/Respondent No. 1 within 3 months from the date of this Order, failing which any outstanding unpaid amounts shall attract interest at the rate of 12% per annum, till the date of its final realisation.

9. Parties to bear their own costs.

10. Pending Application(s), if any, automatically stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.