O R D E R
K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant had taken a car insurance from the O.P-1 which is a branch of the O.P-2, vide insurance policy No.271400/31/2011/4500 for her vehicle No.HR26AB 9382, Tata Indica Car, valid from 21.12.2010 till midnight 20.12.2011. It is alleged that complainant’s car has met an accident on 11.05.2011 while intercepting an act of dacoity/ robbery which was driven by the said Sh. Pritam Singh. It is further alleged that complainant has sent his accidental vehicle for repair where he also a lodged claim for repairing of the vehicle under the above referred policy duly supported with all documents and got repaired the car by paying the billed amount of Rs.68,723/- vide bill No.Autolink-RM-1112-02742 dated 16.06.2011 from his own sources believing that the O.Ps shall make him payment of the sum paid for the repair of the said vehicle. It is alleged that complainant has also filed every bit of information which was required and demanded by the O.Ps for approval of the legitimate, bonafide and genuine insurance claim. It is further alleged that the complainant has been repeatedly reminding and requesting the O.Ps to reimburse the amount paid by him but of no avail. On these facts complainant prays that O.Ps be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.68,723/- with interest @ 18% p.a. and also to pay cost and compensation as claimed.
2. O.Ps appeared and filed its written statement. In its written statement O.Ps have not disputed that complainant had taken policy refer to above. It has also not been disputed that complainant car was met with an accident. It has also not been disputed that the complainants have filed a claim in respect of the said accident. It is alleged that complainant is guilty of violation of condition No.4 of the insurance policy which reads:-“The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition.” It is further alleged that as per the FIR the snatchers were fleeing in another car and just to stop them fleeing the insured vehicle was dashed in the fleeing car of snatchers due to which the insured car was damaged. Hence in the given situation, the insured failed to safeguard the vehicle and knowing fully well that the vehicle will be damaged hit the insured vehicle to the ongoing fleeing vehicle. Hence, the answering O.Ps is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant. It is alleged that the answering O.Ps appointed Aditya Surveyors to assess the loss. It is further alleged that the surveyor has submitted his detailed report dated 23.07.2011 assessing the net loss related to the accident to the tune of Rs.39,447/- only. Dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Complainant’s has filed his affidavit affirming the facts alleged in the complaint. On the other hand Shri S.K. Saxena, Sub-Divisional Manager has filed affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.Ps (OIC) testifying all the facts as stated in the written statement. Parties have also filed their respective written submissions.
4. We have considered the submissions raised by counsels for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. The controversy involved in the present case is as to whether the complainant is entitled to the claim filed by him before the insurance company. The answer is in the negative. Admittedly the claimant had dashed the insured vehicle against another vehicle with a view to intercept the same because the complainant sensed foul play and it was suspected by claimant that the said vehicle was in the course of commission of criminal offence of robbery. The claimant as a good citizen showed courage and caused vehicle to stop by striking against the said vehicle. During this act of the complainant the insured vehicle got damaged and he had to spend Rs.68,723/- on its repair which is claimed from the O.P. The insurance company while relying upon condition No.4 of the insurance policy repudiated the claim. It is worthwhile to reproduce condition No.4 of insurance policy which reads as under:-
“The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition.”
It has been vehemently stressed by the counsel for insurance that insurance contract is a contract of reimbursement i.e. the loss accidently suffered by the insured and not to compensate for voluntary act. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon an authority reported as Eckert Vs. The Long Island Railroad Co. 43 N.Y. 502 (N.Y. 1871), a foreign judgement.
6. In case titled Export Credit Guarntee Corpn. Of India Ltd. Vs. Garg Sons International 2013 STPL (Web) 36 SC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is a settled legal proposition that while construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance and it is not open for the court to add, delete or substitute any word. It is also well settled, that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed in order to determine the extent of the liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavor of the court should always be to interpret the words used in the contract in the manner that will best express the intention of the parties. (Vide: M/s/ Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010)10 SCC 567).
7. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. “…the terms of the contract have to be construed strictly, without altering the nature of the contract as the same may affect the interests of the parties adversely.” The clauses of an insurance policy have to be read as they are…Consequently, the terms of the insurance policy, that fix the responsibility of the insurance company must also be read strictly. The contract must be read as a whole and every attempt should be made to harmonize the terms thereof, keeping in mind that the rule of contra proferentem does not apply in case of commercial contract, for the reasons that a clause in a commercial contract is bilateral and has mutually been agreed upon. (Vide: Oriental Insurance Co. ltd. Vs. Sony Cheriyan AIR 1999 SC 3252; Polymat India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 286; M/s. Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. Vs. Oil & Natural Gas Company, AIR 2010 SC 3400; and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. Vs. M/s Dewan Chand Ram Saran AIR 2012 SC 2829).
In Vikaram Greentech (I) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2009 SC 2493, it was held:
“An insurance contract is a species of commercial transactions and must be construed like any other contract to its own terms and by itself.”
(See also: Sikka Papers Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2009 SC 2834).
8. The observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case makes it abundantly clear that the provisions of insurance policy should be strictly interpreted and should be given their natural meaning. Obviously the loss suffered by the complainant was not accidental or an act by the God, but a deliberate and voluntary act on behalf of the complainant which caused damaged to the vehicle and as per condition No.4 of insurance policy said loss is outside the purview of reimbursement by the O.P.
9. Keeping in view of the above observation, we are of the view that no deficiency of the service has been proved on record against O.Ps. Complaint is, therefore, dismissed.
10. The forum judgment cited by counsel for complainant does not come to with rescue because we have to decide the case as per terms and conditions of the contract i.e. insurance policy.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced this 04th day of January, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
