(Per Shri Narendra Kawde, Hon’ble Member)
(1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 18/09/2012 in Consumer Complaint No.576/2010, Shri Balu Bhiwa Ganjale vs. Divisional Manager, Tata AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd., passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur (‘District Forum’ in short). While allowing the consumer complaint, the District Forum, directed the appellant/opponent insurance company to pay an amount of `53,126/- as per the report of authorized surveyor together with interest @9% p.a. effective from surveyor’s report dated 30/03/2010. Additionally, an amount of `5,000/- was also directed to be paid as costs of litigation. All these reliefs were required to be paid within 30 days from the date of the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, Tata AIG General Insurance Co. (hereinafter referred to as ‘insurance company’) preferred this appeal on the ground that District Forum has erroneously over-looked breach of vital policy condition which prohibits carrying passengers in the insured tractor. Since there is a breach of substantive condition incorporated in the policy, the order impugned is bad in law.
(2) Heard. Perused the record. There is no dispute about subscription of insurance policy. It is also not in dispute about the incident of accident and about the death of one of the passengers carried on the tractor. Police panchnama available on the record supports the contention of the appellant insurance company. The learned counsel pointed out the provision incorporated in the policy documents itself as limitation to use. It is clearly incorporated that “use for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward” is prohibited and if do so, it will not cover under the policy.
(3) The respondent/complainant as well as his advocate did not appear on the date given for hearing and finally on the date of arguments.
(4) There is no rebuttal evidence on record filed by the complainant to disprove that at the time of accident to the insured tractor, passengers were not carried out in excess of permission to carry one cleaner along with driver. The appellant insurance company pleaded from the record and therefore there is no need to separately adduce any evidence in support of their contention. Since this is a major breach of condition prohibiting carriage (of passengers), the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company cannot be held to be deficient in service. The District Forum erroneously arrived at the conclusion to allow the consumer complaint partly without going through the vial terms & conditions incorporated in the policy documents itself. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. We hold accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER
(1) The appeal is allowed.
(2) The impugned order dated 18/09/2012 in Consumer Complaint No.576/2010, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur is quashed and set aside. In the result, the consumer complaint stands dismissed.
(3) No order as to cost.
Pronounced on 21st June, 2013.
