Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/309/2017

Cholamandalam MS. Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Om Prkash s/o Sukhdaeva Ram - Opp.Party(s)

Ravindar Sharma

13 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 309 /2017

 

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., E 52 ARG Group Building, 2^nd floor, Chitranjan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur through Manager

Vs.

Om Prakash s/o Sukhdeva Ram r/o Katrathal Tehsil & Distt. Sikar.

 

 

Date of Order 13.6.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. Ravindra Sharma counsel for the appellant

Mr.Ajay Gadwal counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

2

 

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Sikar dated 13.2.2017 whereby the claim has been allowed against the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellant is that Sikar court was not having jurisdiction as the appellant is not having any office at Sikar and accident has not taken place there. Original claim was submitted was of more than Rs.20 lakhs and the District Forum lacks jurisdiction. At the time of accident 50 passengers were traveling in the vehicle which was the breach of policy condition hence, the claim should have been dismissed.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that he purchased the policy on-line which was received by him at Sikar. He has abondoned the claim above Rs. 20 lakhs hence the Forum below was having territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction. The vehicle was over loaded but it was not the cause of accident hence, the breach was not fundamental and claim has rightly been decided.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

3

 

There is no dispute about the fact that policy was issued to the consumer respondent at his Sikar address and respondent has rightly relied upon the judgment passed by Chandigarh State Commission in First Appeal No. 1241/2013 Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Vs. Kuldeep Jindal where on the same facts that the amount was paid by the insured from a particular place and policy was received at his residential address and it was held that the particular Forum was having jurisdiction. Hence, objection as regard to territorial jurisdiction is not sustainable.

 

The Forum below has rightly noted that the claim above Rs. 20 lakhs is abondoned by the consumer hence, objection as regard to pecuniary jurisdiction is not sustainable.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the vehicle was over loaded at the time of accident and as per the investigation it is also more than clear that the impugned vehicle was not negligent and due to rash driving of another vehicle accident has occurred and respondent has rightly relied upon the judgment passed by the apex court in Civil Appeal No. 49/2016 Lakshmi Chand Vs. Reliance General Insurance where the apex court has held that carrying the passengers above the capacity is

4

 

not a fundamental breach and appellant has also relied upon II (2013) CPJ 86 Pratap Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. where looking at the breach the claim has been settled on 75%. The appellant has also relied upon III (2010) CPJ 421 (NC) Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. B.A.Nagesh where the breach was grave and looking at the facts of the case repudiation was found justified.

 

The respondent has relied upon the judgment passed by this Commission in Appeal No. 1391/2001 United India Insurance Co. Vs. Moolaram where the issue was as regard to plying the vehicle on hire and reward which is not the case here. Hence, in view of the above when breach is not fundamental the claim should have been settled on non-standard basis and the consumer is only entitled for 75% of the loss.

 

The appellant has further contended that as per surveyor report the loss assessed is Rs. 8,90,307/- but as per the contract between the parties the IDV of the vehicle is only Rs. 7,90,000/- and appellant could not be held liable more than that.

 

5

 

In view of the above the appeal is partially allowed. The respondent is entitled only for the amount of 75% of Rs.7,90,000/- i.e. Rs.5,92,500/- instead of Rs.8,90,307/-. Rest of the terms needs no interference.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm