Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Challenge under this Appeal is the Order dated 10-07-2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Siliguri in C.C. No. 34/2013 whereof the complaint has been allowed. 

Brief facts of the complaint case are that the Complainant got her vehicle bearing Registration No. WB-76/7508 insured through the OP Insurance Company which was valid for the period from 25-11-2011 to 24-11-2012.  The said vehicle met with an accident on 18-08-2012 which caused severe damage to the vehicle.  The estimated cost of repairing was figured out as Rs. 3,35,661.66.  On being informed of such peril, the OP Insurance Company deputed a Surveyor, who, after due inspection, assessed the loss at Rs. 1,91,346/-.  However, the OP Insurance Company refused to indemnify the loss alleging that her commercial vehicle was insured under the Private Car Package Policy.  Hence, the complaint.

On notice, the OP Insurance company appeared to defend its case.  By filing a WV, the OP Insurer denied any infirmity for its refusal to indemnify the loss.  It is stated that the insurance policy was obtained before completion of due registration of the vehicle. It is further asserted that it was the prima-facie duty of the Complainant to inform the OP Insurer for necessary rectification of the insurance policy, if there was any bona fide mistake on the part of the OP Insurer.  According to the OP Insurer, the very fact that the Complainant did not approach the OP Insurer for doing necessary correction of her insurance policy after receiving the same or any date before the occurrence of peril, is a clear pointer of the fact that she intentionally did so to save money as premium for commercial vehicle is much higher than that of a private vehicle. The Surveyor though assessed the loss at Rs. 1,91,346/-, he informed that the policy in question was for ‘private car package policy’ although the said vehicle was registered for ‘commercial use’ as a taxi and as such, this policy was not valid for that particular class of vehicle. 

Decision with reasons

Heard both sides on the issue and perused the material on record carefully.

Admittedly, the vehicle was registered as a ‘commercial vehicle’; whereas, the insurance policy taken for that vehicle was  a Private Car Package Policy.  In this regard, it is stated by the Respondent No. 1 that while applying for the insurance policy, she filled up necessary form meant for insurance of commercial vehicle and also paid due premium as demanded by the Appellants. However, the Appellants wrongly issued Private Car Package Policy in respect of her vehicle which somehow escaped her attention.  Therefore, if there was any mistake done, according to the Respondent No. 1, the Appellants themselves were fully responsible for the same. 

Most surprisingly, although the proposal form could prove to be a sheet anchor for the Appellants that would certainly placed them on strong footing and proved the Respondent No. 1 wrong, neither this crucial form is placed on record by the Appellants, nor they have stated in specific terms what would be the appropriate premium for the vehicle in question. 

Another vital aspect of this case that we cannot overlook is that whether a particular vehicle belongs to ‘commercial’ category or ‘private’ one, can be easily ascertained from the registration no. itself.  Take for example of a vehicle no. WB-01-A/0001, here ‘WB’ denotes code for the State of West Bengal, ’01’ denotes Kolkata Beltala RTO Code for two wheelers, ‘A’ denotes the series and lastly ‘0001’ denotes running serial no. of the vehicle concerned.  Similarly, registration no. WB-76/7508, i.e., registration no. of the vehicle of the Respondent No. 1, itself signified the fact that it belonged to commercial vehicle category under the RTO Darjeeling (transport vehicle) in the State of West Bengal. 

Thus, we cannot accept the accusation of the Appellants that the Respondent No. 1 intentionally opted for the Private Car Package Policy in order to lessen her financial burden towards insurance premium.  Since the particular nature of the vehicle (commercial or private) is ascertainable from the registration no. of the vehicle itself, it is virtually impossible for one to get away with one’s mala fide design.  In this case, notwithstanding formal registration process of the vehicle was completed post issuance of the insurance policy in question, that the Appellants were well aware of the registration no. of the vehicle in question is discernable from the insurance policy itself.  Therefore, the Appellants cannot abdicate their responsibility by passing the entire buck upon the Respondent No. 1.  They ought to be vigilant while issuing the insurance policy in question.

Given that the Respondent No. 1 was a house-wife and as contented, it was her maiden foray in commercial activities to earn livelihood, in absence of conclusive immaculate evidence to attribute any sort of mala fide intention on her part, we believe, she deserves benefit of doubt in this case.

Accordingly, to our mind, the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, save and except awarding both interest and lump sum compensation which is not tenable in law.   Thus, we restrict our interference with the impugned order to rectify the aforesaid anomaly.

The Appeal, accordingly, succeeds in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That A/967/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest in part.  The impugned order is modified as under:

The Appellants shall reimburse, within 45 days hence, a sum of Rs. 1,91,346/- towards repairing cost of the damaged insured vehicle in question together with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of institution of the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum till full and final payment is made.  Besides this, Appellants shall pay another sum of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost to the Respondent No. 1.