Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) This is an appeal filed by the original Complainant whose Complaint no. 240/2005 against The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Sangli was dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli on 20.06.2006.
(2) Facts may be stated as under:
The Complainant had taken loan from Shriram Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Vangi, Tal. Khanapur, District Sangli and by taking loan he had purchased Tata jeep no.MH-06-7713. Opponent No.2 had deposited insurance premium with the Opponent No.1. On 28.06.2001 driver of the said jeep Mr.Taufique Hasan Shaikh was taking vehicle to the Company for transporting labourers in the Company. Said jeep was stolen away by somebody. This was informed to the Complainant by driver Mr.Taufique Hasan Shaikh. Accordingly Complainant had lodged report and theft against driver Mr.Taufique Hasan Shaikh and his friend and on the basis of which the police registered crime no.199/2001. In due course of time Complainant submitted claim form to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company, however, repudiated the claim and therefore, for claiming amount of `4,75,000/-he filed consumer complaint.
(3) Opponent No.1 Insurance Company contested the complaint. It specifically pleaded that Complainant had engaged the vehicle for hire and reward. He was using it for commercial purpose, whereas he had purchased the car for his own personal use. So, he violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to give insurance claim to the Complainant. It also pleaded that while taking the policy, the Complainant had told that vehicle was worth `3,00,000/- but he had not shown market value of the vehicle. The market value of the vehicle was more than `4,75,000/- and he took insurance cover showing that the vehicle was worth `3,00,000/-. Thus, insurance Company held that they had rightly repudiated the claim.
(4) The District Forum on considering the affidavits and documents submitted by both the parties held that the Complainant who is Appellant herein had clearly violated the terms and conditions of the Policy. He had purchased the vehicle for personal use and took insurance cover accordingly but he used the vehicle for commercial purpose. He engaged the said jeep for bringing labourers to and fro from Nitrate Company and he was surely earning income by using the said vehicle for commercial purpose. Therefore, finding that the Complainant had breached the terms and conditions of the policy the District Forum has dismissed the Complaint. Aggrieved by the said order the original Complainant has filed this appeal.
(5) This appeal was lying unattended since 2006. It was placed before us on 5th October, 2011 after it was published on the notice board of this Commission and also on the internet. On that day we found that both the parties were absent. Therefore, we directed office to issue notice to both the parties by ordinary post and adjourned the matter to today i.e. 09.12.2011. Accordingly the office had sent notice to both the parties. But, today both the parties are absent. We have therefore proceeded to decide the appeal on merit.
(6) After perusal of documents on record, we are finding that the order passed by the District Forum dismissing the complaint is just and proper in as much as vehicle was purchased by the Appellant for personal use, whereas he engaged the vehicle for earning profit. He was using the vehicle for carrying out labourers of one Company on monthly basis and therefore, there was clear-cut violation of terms and conditions of the policy. As such the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint. We are finding no substance in the appeal. Hence, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal stands dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 9th December, 2011.
