PER SHRI S.M.SHEMBOLE, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27/09/2002 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Yavatmal allowing the consumer complaint No. 23/2001 directing the appellant/ opponent- Insurance Company to pay to the complainant insurance claim on non standard basis Rs.74,030/- with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 01/02/2001 and further to pay to the complainant Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- more towards cost of complaint.
(For the sake of brevity appellant is hereinafter called as “the opponent- insurance company” and respondent as “the complainant”).
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that,
1. Complainant- Mr. Shivshankar was the owner of the Tempo Trax bearing No. MH-21/A-9606 and it was insured with the opponent- insurance company for the period from 04/11/1999 to 03/11/2000. The vehicle was for personal use of the complainant. On 10/12/1999 when the relatives of the complainant were travelling by the vehicle & were going to Surat Pilgrim, it met with an accident on Dhule- Sakri road and it was damaged. After the accident the vehicle was repaired at Aurangabad and bill of Rs.98,706/- was paid by the complainant and same bill was submitted to the opponent-insurance company for reimbursement. However, the opponent-insurance company repudiated his claim vide letter dated 30/06/2000 informing that the complainant committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy by given the same vehicle on rent. Therefore, the complainant filed the consumer complaint claiming reimbursement of repair charges Rs.98,706/- and compensation at Rs.10,000/- for causing mental and physical torture and Rs. 3000/- more towards the cost of the proceeding.
2. Opponent- insurance company by its written version resisted the complaint. It did not dispute that the vehicle was damaged and the complainant spent the amount Rs. 98,706/- for repairs. However, it has repudiated the insurance claim as the complainant committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy by using the vehicle on rent, etc. It has denied all other adverse averments made by the complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint.
3. On hearing both the sides and considering the evidence on record the District consumer Forum held that the vehicle was used by the complainant for personal and for the use of his relatives and it was not given on rent, etc. but the opponent has wrongly repudiated the claim. The District Consumer Forum further held that even if, it is presumed that the complainant committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy by giving the vehicle on rent, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the complainant is entitled to get claim for non-standard basis. In keeping with this finding the District Consumer Forum has partly allowed the claim as noted above.
4. Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order, the opponent- insurance company has preferred this appeal.
5. We heard Mr. Kataria, Ld. Counsel for the opponent-insurance company and perused the written notes of arguments submitted by him. We have also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint, written version, insurance policy and copies of others documents. However, we have had no opportunity to hear the respondent/complainant as he remained absent and appeal is proceeded exparte.
6. The undisputed facts are that on 10/12/1999 the vehicle met with an accident and thereby damaged and complainant was required to get it repaired by spending amount Rs. 98,706/- and on the date of accident the insurance policy was in force. The crux in this matter is as to whether the complainant committed breach of policy condition by using the vehicle for carrying passengers or giving vehicle on rent.
7. It is submitted by Mr. Kataria, Ld. Counsel for the appellant/opponent-insurance company that on the date of accident the complainant had given the vehicle on rent to one Dr. Sanjay Bhangade and it was revealed during the investigation made by the surveyor of the opponent- insurance company. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the opponent-insurance company that the surveyor recorded the statement of Dr. Sanjay Bhangade who stated before him that the vehicle was taken on rent of Rs.3/- per km. He was also pointed that this fact from the copy of statement of Dr. Sanjay Bhangade and therefore, according to Mr. Kataria, Ld. Counsel for the opponent-insurance company, the complainant is not entitled to claim any insurance claim. But the District Consumer has wrongly allowed the claim on non standard basis. But we find no force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the opponent-insurance company. Firstly, because the surveyor, who recorded the statement of Dr. Sanjay Bhangade, is the employee of the opponent-insurance company and he was not expected to record the statement during the investigation. Secondly, statement of Dr. Sanjay Bhangade, recorded by the surveyor falsify by the affidavit of the Dr. Sanjay Bhangade who deposed that he is a real cousin of complainant- Mr. Shivshankar and he had not taken the vehicle on rent but he had carried the vehicle for taking the relatives and family members for pilgrim. Therefore, the statement of Dr. Sanjay Bhangade, which is recorded the surveyor of the opponent-insurance company, looses its significance. Therefore, no weight-age can be given to such statement.
8 Apart from the above facts, the copy of F.I.R. which was lodged by the said Dr. Sanjay Bhangade does not reflect that the vehicle was taken by him on rent. Accordingly, the District Consumer Forum relying on the copy of F.I.R. and copy of statement of Dr. Sanjay Bhangade rightly held that the complainant has not committed breach of any terms & condition of the insurance policy. We find no glaring error of illegality in the impugned judgment and order. Hence, no interference is warranted.
9. In the result the appeal is being devoid of any merits deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1. Appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
Dated:- 22/04/2013
