Reliance general Insurance Co., Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)
Sri.T.D.Mahadeva
09 Dec 2010
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA D.C.Office Compound, Opp. District Court Premises, Mandya - 571 401. consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/93
Sri.Prakash.K.S.
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Reliance general Insurance Reliance general Insurance Co., Ltd.,
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Smt.A.P.Mahadevamma2. Sri.M.N.Manohara
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
ÀÙÔÓÃܮР»Ð¢Ñ¾ý ¦ÙÖÓÐÐ ´Ó»ÐÔþ ÀÐÔ³ÐÔê ¤Ñ¡ô ¦ÙÖÓÐÐ ÀÙÔÓÃó¹ÐÁ ´Ó»ÐÔþÐÎйÐÔî »Ð§ÇÓÅËÑÐ »°ý.Ë. Ãö¸Ðì¤ÐÔ ÀÙÖӪѤÐÔ Ñ¦ÙÔì ¯ ÐÔ º¦ÐÔÀÐÔÐ »ÐõѤРÁÀÐ¦Ñ ¤ÐÙù¦ÐÔ Ãöй٦ЦÑÐÔÀÐÕ¸Ãö ÐÔ ÀÙÔÓÃܮР´Ó»ÐÔþÐÎÐÅö ÊÐïÉåÓФб ÀЦѯ¤ÐÔ³Ñê¤Ù. ÊÐЧ »Ð¢Ñ¾ý ¦ÙÖÓÐÐ ´Ó¼þ¹ÐÅö ¤ÑÉåÿõÓ¦ÐÔ ¦ÙÖÓÐÐ G.Kothainachiar -Vs- The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co., and other, IV (2007) CPJ 347 (NC) ´õÊÐÐÊÐô¤ÐÔ ºÓ¯¤ÐÔÀÐ ´Ó»Ðþ¹ÐÔî ¤Ñ¡ô ¦ÙÖÓÐÀÐÕ ÄÙöÓˤÐÔ³ÐêÙ.
11. ÐÔ¤ÐÔѤФÐÔ »ÐõФбÙÜ ¤ÑÉåÿõÓ¦ÐÔ ¦ÙÖÓÐÐ ¸÷ÊÐÐÊÐô ¼ÓÐÐ ´Ó»ÑþÐ III(2010) CPJ 253 (NC) ¹ÐÔî ÄÙöÓË ÊÐЧ ´Ó¼þ¹Ð »ÐõѤР»°ý.Ë. ЮÑç¦ÐÔÀÑ ÑÅê¦ÐÔÅö¤Ð¾ÙÓÙÐÔ Ãö¸Ðì »ÐÐùÐÅö ÐÔ ÀÙÖӪѤÐÔ ÀÑÌйРѦÙÔì¦ÐÔ Ãöй٦ЦÑÐÔ³ÐêÙ ÐÔ ÀÑйÐÀйÐÔî ÀÐԯˤÐÔ³Ñê¤Ù. Ф٠ÊÐЧ ¸÷ÊÐÐÊÐô ¼ÓÐÐ ´Ó»Ðþ¹ÐÔî ÊÐÖÐùÿóÀÑ »Ð§ÇÓÅËÑÐ »ÐõÊÐÔê³Ð ÁÈЦÐÔ ÊÐд ÀÐÔ³ÐÔê ¸÷ÊÐÐÊÐô ¼ÓÐÐ »ÐõФбРÀÐÊÐÔê ÊÐд¦ÐÔÔ ¾ÙÓ¤Ù ¾ÙӤ٦ЦѤÐÔ³ÐêÙ. ¸÷ÊÐÐÊÐô ¼ÓÐÐ »ÐõФбÐÅö »ÐѳÐÀÑÐÐ ÀÑÌйÐÙÜ »°ý.Ë. ¤ÐÅÃö ÀÐÔ³ÐÔê ÁÀÐ¦Ñ ¤ÐÙù ÑÅê¦ÐÔÅö³ÐÔê, Ф٠»ÐõÊÐÔê³Ð »ÐõФбРÀÐÊÐÔê ÊÐд¦ÐÔÅö »ÐõÇî³Ð ÀÑÌйÐÐ »°ý.Ë. ÐÔì ¸:08.11.2009 ¤ÐÐÔ ÀÐÔÔÑê¦ÐÔÀѳÐÔê, ÊÐЧ ÀÑÌйР¸:26.11.2009 ¤ÐÐÔ »ÐѳÐܮѳÐÔê, ÀÑÌйÐÀйÐÔî ¤ý.«.. ¸°Ñ§ ³Ð»ÑÊвÙÙ ÎÐ»Ð¯Ë »ÐѳÐÀÐÕ ÀÑÌйÐÐ ¦Ð¦Ñ´õÐ ³ÙÖФÙÂÔÐ ÃöÀÙÐÔ Ðد°ÓФб »Ð³ÐõÀйÐÔî ¸:26.11.2009 ¤ÐÐÔ ÙÖ«åÐÔì, ÊÐЧ ÐÄÙ¦ÐÔÔ Ð®Ð³ÐÐÅö¤ÐÔ³ÐêÙ. Ф٠ÐÔ¤ÐÔѤФÐÔ ÌÑ¡¤ÐÔ ÀЦѯ¤ÐÔÀÐ ¸÷ÊÐÐÊÐô ¼ÓÐÐ ´Ó»Ðþ¹ÐÔî ÀÐÄÙÖÓËÑÐ »Ñô¤Ð - 6 ¤ÐÅö ÄÙöÓ §Ó´ ¤ÐÔ³ÐêÙ:-
"Hence, the controversy raised by Insurance Company about use of vehicle contrary to the terms and conditions of policy as for capacity of vehicle for sitting of passengers had been set at rest following decision of Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above (supra). Though two-Member Bench of this Commission, in a similar matter of violation of provisions of M.V. Act, 1988 for plying vehicle without valid fitness certificate held repudiation of claim to be valid, however, as company was willing to grant insured amount on an ex-gratia basis, regard being had to the situation and also that vehicle carrying school children had suffered damages, Insurance Company was directed to pay insured amount to the respondent/complainant. Almost in the same backdrop when a claim was repudiated by Insurance Company for there being no valid certificate of fitness, a three Member Bench of this Commission in case of G.Kotha Inachiar -Vs- United India Insurance Company Ltd., reported in IV (2007) CPJ 347 (NC), held repudiation bad and directed Insurance Company to honour claim of petitioner/ complainant. However, for appreciation of ratio of decision of case of G.Kotha Inachiar -Vs- United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), we may notice that in that case though insured was having fitness certificate with regard to vehicle till 30.05.1995, there was no fitness certificate beyond the aforesaid period and during this very period the accident took place on 22.06.1995. National Commission for holding repudiation of claim, took into notice the short period beyond which the vehicle did not have fitness certificate and also there being inspection report of RTO that vehicle was in good condition for it being plied at the time of accident."
