Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/15/250

SURESH SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE GIC - Opp.Party(s)

SH. P.N. SHUKLA

25 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 250 OF 2015

(Arising out of order dated 23.02.2015 passed in C.C.No.17/2014 by District Commission, Rewa)

 

SURESH SINGH                                                                                                     …         APPELLANT.

 

                    Versus

 

MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.                                   …         RESPONDENT.

 

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

 

                                      O R D E R

 

25.07.2024

 

     Shri P. N. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.

     Shri Aditya Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari:

        The complainant/appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewa (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.17/2014 whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2.                Heard. Perused the record.

3.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the complainant’s tractor bearing registration number MP-17 AA-4427 was insured with the opposite party-insurance company for the period w.e.f.22.10.2011 to 21.10.2012. During the insurance cover the subject tractor met with an accident

-2-

on 27.05.2012 of which intimation was given to the police and insurance company. The claim filed with the insurance company was not decided by the insurance company. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- but the District Commission erroneously dismissed the complaint holding that there was violation of policy terms and conditions and therefore, there has been no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company. In fact, 3-4 pedestrians were injured in the accident and at the time of accident no passengers were travelling in the vehicle. He therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

4.                On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party-insurance company argued that on receiving intimation the insurance company appointed Surveyor in the matter who after conducting survey submitted his report. He argued that the tractor was insured for agricultural purposes whereas at the time of accident so many passengers were travelling in the tractor which is violation to policy terms and conditions. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company in denying the claim, as complainant is not entitled to get any relief. He argued that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint.

5.                Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we find that admittedly, the complainant’s tractor met with an accident during insurance cover and got damaged.  The claim filed by the

-3-

complainant was denied by the insurance company on the ground that the tractor was insured for agricultural purposes whereas at the time of accident it was in use to carry passengers. On perusal of FIR (C-1) it is evident that at the time of accident, six passengers were travelling in the subject tractor with driver which amounts to violation of policy terms and conditions. The complainant did not deny the fact that the tractor was not insured for agricultural purposes and passengers were not travelling in the subject tractor at the time of accident.

6.                During arguments, learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the complainant is having agricultural land and the persons travelling in the tractor were going to agricultural land for doing agricultural work. However, on being asked that whether any such affidavit has been filed in this regard, he has submitted that no such affidavit was filed. In such circumstances, the possibility that the driver of the tractor carrying passengers cannot be ruled out.

7.                Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that since there was violation of policy terms and conditions as the insured tractor was carrying six passengers other than the driver, the insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim.  Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC) has held that in case of violation of policy terms and conditions at least the claim should have been decided on non-standard basis. However, in the case in hand in a tractor other than the driver six passengers  were travelling at the time of accident, thus,

-5-

there was breach of policy terms and conditions and in our considered view no concession can be granted to the complainant in the light of the aforesaid judgment.

7.                In view of the above discussion, we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the District Commission in the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby affirmed.

8.                In the result, this appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

                    (A. K. Tiwari)                      (Dr. Srikant Pandey)  

                 Acting President                                Member