Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, for insurance claim of Rs.1,25,000/- with compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that he is the owner of Tractor and Trailer bearing Reg. No.KA-11-7150-7151. The said vehicle was insured with the Opposite party Insurance Company under policy No.422800/47/ 2007/36 valid from 03.05.2006 to 02.05.2007. The driver of the tractor and trailer namely Sri.C.D.Ravi had parked the trailer on 07.04.2007 near Garibi Colony, Rudrakshipura Village bringing the tractor near the house of the complainant. On the next day, he noticed missing of the trailer and the complainant made search for the said vehicle and it was not traced out. So, he lodged a complaint before the Maddur Police in Crime No.179/2007 and after investigation, police filed C-report to the Court, stating that trailer could not be traced out. The complainant submitted necessary documents along with the claim form to the 1st Opposite party for settlement of the claim. The Opposite party has repudiated the claim stating that vehicle was being used for commercial purpose, which is false. The repudiation of the claim is illegal. Therefore, the present complaint is filed. 3. The Opposite party has filed version. Admitting that the tractor and trailer were insured with the Opposite party Insurance Company for a period from 03.05.2006 to 02.05.2007, but the vehicle was insured under Kissan Package Insurance which covers only the agricultural purpose and the premium for the policy was paid by the complainant only for the said purpose and not for any commercial purpose. The vehicle was not comprehensively insured. According to the complainant and also records, the complainant had hired the said vehicle to brick factory belonged to one Sri.Ramalingaiah and on 07.04.2007 when he parked the said vehicle at factory premises it was stolen. The Opposite party denies the theft of the vehicle and alleges nexus between the owner and the thief. Even, if the vehicle has been stolen, the Opposite party was not under obligation to indemnify, since there is breach of conditions, because within 24 hours of loss, complaint should be filed to the police. Further, notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of the loss or theft. But, the complainant gave the complaint of theft to the police on 25.04.2007 after lapse of 18 days and also Opposite party has not received any kind of intimation regarding theft of the vehicle from the complainant and only on 26.04.2007 the same was brought to the knowledge of the complainant. After scrutinizing the records and investigation report, the Opposite party repudiated the claim for violation of the conditions. There is no deficiency in service. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. During trial, the complainant is examined along with one witness and complainant produced Ex.C.1 to C.6 documents. On behalf of the Opposite party one witness examined and Ex.R.1 to R.4 documents are produced. 5. We have heard both sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the repudiation of the claim by Opposite party is proper? 2. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the insurance amount? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. The undisputed facts are that the complainant is the owner of the Tractor and trailer bearing Reg. No.KA-11-7150-7151 and the said vehicles were insured with the Opposite party for a period from 03.05.2006 to 02.05.2007. 9. According to the complainant, on 07.04.2007 the driver had parked the trailer near Garibi Colony, Rudrakshipura Village and next day it was missing and complainant made search and it was not traced out, thereafter, he lodged a complaint on 25.04.2007. Ex.C.1 & C.2 reveals that the Maddur Police has registered FIR No.349/2007 and after investigation have submitted the C-report as the vehicle was not traced and the Court has accepted the same. Further, according to the complainant, he submitted the claim form with necessary documents to 1st Opposite party for settlement of the claim. But, the Opposite party repudiated alleging that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. 10. According to the complainant, the repudiation is illegal, because the vehicle was not at all used for hire purpose and the vehicle was stolen which was parked near Garibi Colony, Rudrakshipura. But the contention of the Opposite party is that in the complaint before the police, it is clearly stated that tractor and trailer was left for hire to brick factory of Sri.Ramalingaiah which is near Garibi Colony of Rudrakshipura and on 07.04.2007 after working till evening as usual the trally was parked in the brick factory and driver brought the engine near the house and since the next day was Sunday which is a holiday he did not go to factory and he went to factory on Monday morning but the trally was not there and searched and not traced. Further, even in the letter by the complainant to the Opposite party as per Ex.R.4, it is clearly stated that after completing the work in brick factory till evening on 07.04.2007 as usual the trailer was parked there and engine was brought to their house, since Sunday was holiday he did not go to factory and then on Monday i.e., 09.04.2007 morning when he went to factory, the trally was not there and his brother, the driver of the tractor informed the same to the complainant and they searched, but was not traced, therefore it was stolen and complaint was lodged to the police. So, on the basis of averments made in the complaint to the police and Ex.R.4 letter to the Opposite party by the complainant, it is contended by the Opposite party counsel that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose, though the tractor was insured under Kissan Package Insurance which covers only the agricultural purpose and the premium for the policy was paid for the said purpose only and not for any commercial purpose and hence, the claim was rightly repudiated by the Opposite party, because of the violation of the terms of the policy. The Opposite party has produced Ex.R.1 Kissan Package Insurance policy brochure which reveals the conditions and Ex.R.2 is the policy issued to the complainants vehicle under Kissan Package Insurance Policy. Though the complainant has deposed that the tractor and trailer were not at all used for commercial purpose i.e. hire to the brick factory, but there is clear admission in the complaint before the police and also in the letter Ex.R.4 that the tractor and trailer were hired to brick factory work and therefore, the trailer was parked in the brick factory premises. As per the decision of Honble National Commission in R.P.No.681/2006 decided on 23.10.2008, the statement given by the complainant in FIR before the police is admissible before the Forum. Therefore, it proves that the trailer of the complainant was stolen when it was parked near the brick factory which was hired to the brick factory owner and so it was commercial purpose. Though, it is established that the vehicle was stolen when it was being used for commercial purpose, we have to consider Ex.R.1 Kissan Package Insurance Policy and Ex.R.2 the policy given to the complainant. In Ex.R.2 the policy in respect of the complainants vehicle, the agricultural implements, the tractor and trailer were insured for Rs.5,06,500/- and premium of Rs.8,100/- has been paid, but no conditions are imposed in the policy Ex.R.2. Even in Ex.R.1, the Kissan Package Insurance Policy brochure at Section XV in respect of agricultural tractors, no conditions are imposed not to use for any other purpose other than agriculture. It is commonly known that agricultural operations will be carried only for a limited period and not through out the year and therefore, the tractor and trailer cannot be used for agricultural purpose through out the year and to meet the expenses and also payment of loan for the tractor, the farmers use the tractor and trailer for other purpose like; transporting sand, mud, bricks, stones etc. When there is no specific condition in the policy Ex.R.2 that the tractor and trailer should be not used for any other purpose other than agriculture, it cannot be said that the complainant has contravened the terms of the insurance policy. Even though, there is some delay in lodging the complaint to the police about the theft of the trailer and information to the Opposite party about the theft it is only 15 days and according to the evidence of the complainant, he was making search in the neighbour area and thereafter he lodged the complaint. There is no evidence by the Opposite party that there is difference of premium amount for the insurance, in case tractor used for agricultural purpose only and extra premium will be levied, in case tractor used for other purpose apart from agriculture. So, when there is no prohibition in the Insurance Package Ex.R.1 and the policy Ex.R.2 not to use the tractor and trailer for any other purpose other than agriculture and in the policy no conditions is laid down, the Opposite party is not able to point out which condition of the policy is violated by the complainant. Under these circumstances, when there is no breach of law or breach of policy and when the theft of trailer is proved, the repudiation by the Opposite party is not justified and therefore, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in repudiating the claim. 11. The complainant has sought for Rs.1,25,000/- as the cost of trailer and compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony. The price of the trailer is not disputed by the Opposite party at all. There is no evidence that it is a old trailer and depreciation has to be made. Under these circumstances, the Opposite party is liable to pay the insurance amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. The complainant has sought for compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and shock, but under these circumstances of the case, the complainant is not entitled to the compensation. 12. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is allowed, directing the 1st Opposite party to pay insurance amount of Rs.1,25,000/- with cost of Rs.2,000/- within 6 weeks from this day, failing which it is liable to pay interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 12th day of March 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
