BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-III, HYDERABAD CC.No 125 of 2007 Between: Maqbool Ahmed Baig S/o.Abdul Khadar Baag Occ: Transport Business, H.No.17-42, Maqbool Mansion, Alla Nagar, Basvakalyan District Bidar. ….Complainant AND The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office 10, 1st & 2nd Floor, Crystal Plaza, D.No.10-5-5/4, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. ….Opp.party Counsel for the Complainant : Mr.Sangamesh Patil Counsel for the Opposite Party :Mr.Ch.Durga Prasad QUORUM: SMT. C. NIRMALA, B.Sc., M.A.,INCHAGE PRESIDENT. SRI D. MAHESH KUMAR, B.Com., B.L., MALE MEMBER ON THIS THE 13th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2007. * * * (PER HON’BLE SMT.C.NIRMALA, INCHARGE PRESIDENT ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH) O R D E R The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief facts in the complaint are as follows: The complainant Mr.Maqbool Ahmed Baig is the owner of the goods vehicle bearing registration no.KA39/7428 which was insured with the United India Insurance Company under a policy no.052100/31/03/08418 with validity from 13.01.04 to 12.01.05. It is the case of the complainant that on 4.9.04 the vehicle met with an accident while traveling from Sakri to Dhule on NH.9 when it collided with a Bus bearing no.MH 12UA 8944. A case was registered in crime no.197/04 against the driver of the lorry of the complainant for the offence punishable under sections 279, 337, & 427 IPC and section 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act and an FIR was issued by Dhule Police Station. The fact of the accident was informed to the insurer who appointed a surveyor. After the surveyor inspection the complainant was permitted to lift the vehicle and get it repaired. Subsequently the complainant submitted a claim to the insurer. The claim was repudiated on 15.03.05 on the ground that at the time of alleged accident there were four passengers plus one driver and a cleaner present in the cabin. It was stated that the number of persons present in the cabin were more than the permitted capacity thus violating the RC and policy conditions. The complainant had filed a complaint in the District Consumer Reddressal Forum, Bidar who dismissed it as there was no territorial jurisdiction. Consequently the complainant has filed a case in this forum. The complainant alleges that the opposite party has repudiated the claim to avoid their liability and therefore have been deficient in service. The complainant prays for a relief of Rs.150000/- being the expenses incurred on the vehicle and a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation. The complainant has filed an evidence affidavit, written arguments along with documents in support of his case. In the version filed by the opposite party it is stated that the complainant had violated the conditions of the policy by carrying six persons in the cabin. It is argued that since the coverage of risks and the benefits of the policy are available only if the complainant had complied with the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy and the rules framed under the Motor Vehicle Act of 1988. Therefore the opposite party submits that they were justified in repudiating the complainant’s claim. It is further submitted that the expenditure incurred by the complainant have been inflated for the purpose of the claim and that the workshop service provider is not an authorized service agent. It is further argued that the complainant has an alternate relief of claiming damages against the state transport bus which was involved in the accident. The opposite party pleads for a dismissal of the case. The opposite party has filed a memo of affidavit and written arguments. The point of consideration is whether there has been any deficiency of service and if so to what relief? We have perused the documents submitted to us and have heard the counsel for the opposite party. The fact of the accident and the presence of valid policy is not under dispute. It is observed that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that there were four persons in the cabin which is more than the permissible capacityand thus was in violation of RC and policy conditions (Ex.A-4). Ex.A-6 is the permit issued by the road transport authority where in it is stated that the load capacity of the vehicle as 10235Kgs. and the laden weight as 16200Kgs. At the time of accident the vehicle was 9400Kg. in weight. From the punchanama report it is gathered that the truck had collided into a stationary bus from behind and at the time of accident there were four persons in the cabin who were injured in the accident. However the insurer has not raised the contention that the truck was loaded more than the laden weight permitted. Even though the four persons that were being carried at the time of accident were not permissable there is no evidence to show that the same four persons have contributed to the cause of the accident. Merely the presence of the additional four passengers who would not have contributed significantly to the permitted tonnage to be carried by the vehicle can not be the prime reason for repudiation of the claim by the insurer. The insurer cannot escape their liability and thus defeat the very purpose of paying a high premium to cover the risks as enlisted in the policy. We rely on the judgement of Jagadeesh Harilal Thakur V/s.New India Insurance Company Limited 1993, CCJ501. N.C.D.R.C. in the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd., V/s.Nabin Chandra Naik RP2050 of 2003 decided on 13 February 2004 reiterated that taking of a few extra passengers could not be held to be a cause for accident so as to entitle insurance company to repudiate the claim. In view of the above we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to indemnify the damage caused to the vehicle. However the complainant has failed to advance evidence with respect to the expenses incurred by him. There has been no document on record to substantiate his claim of Rs.150000/- incurred as expenses towards damage caused. Therefore a reasonable compensation is allowed. The opposite party is held liable for deficiency of service as it is found they were not justified in repudiation of the claim. The complaint is allowed and the complainant is entitled to a part claim. In the result, the opposite party is directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation and a sum of Rs.2000/- towards costs. This order should be complied within four weeks from this date. Dictated to steno transcribed and typed by her pronounced by us on this the 13th Day of September, 2007. Sd/- Sd/- INCHARGEPRESIDENT MALE MEMBER: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESS EXAMINED For Complainant: For Opposite party None None Exhibits: Ex.A-1 is the copy of FIR in crime no.197 of 2004 of Dhule P.S., with translation Ex.A-2 is copy of complaint with translation Ex.A-3 is copy of spot panchnama with translation Ex.A-4 is copy of letter dt.25.03.05 of respondent company Ex.A-5 is copy of R.C.book Ex.A-6 is copy of permit. Sd/- Sd/- INCHARGE PRESIDENT MALE MEMBER
......................C.Nirmala
......................D.Mahesh Kumar | | 
