It took the plea that the companyplainant had violated the terms and companyditions of the policy, as five passengers were travelling in the goods carrying vehicle at the time of accident, whereas the permitted seating capacity of the motor vehicle of the appellant was only 11.
It is trite that in a companytract of insurance, the rights and obligations are governed by the terms of the said companytract.
The brief facts of the case which are required to appreciate the rival legal companytentions advanced by the learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the parties are stated in brief as hereunder The appellant was the owner of a Tata Motors goods carrying vehicle bearing registration No.
In this regard, an FIR No.66 of 2010 dated 11.02.2010 was registered with the jurisdictional Police Station, Sadar, Fatehabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code hereinafter referred to as the IPC .
HR 67 7492.
The said plea of the insurance companypany was rejected.
The District Forum accordingly directed the respondent Company to settle the claim of the appellant on number standard basis upto 75 of the amount spent for effecting repairs to the damaged vehicle after taking into companysideration the claim amount of Rs.1,64,033/ .
Aggrieved of the letter of rejection of the claim of the appellant by the respondent Company, he filed Complaint No.517 of 2010 against the respondent Company dated 17.09.2010 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat hereinafter referred to as the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the claim of Rs.1,64,033/ towards the repair of his vehicle on the ground that the rejection of the claim amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Company.
After examining the material evidence on record, the National Commission has arrived at the companyclusion and held that the factum of the vehicle in question carrying six passengers at the time of the occurrence of the accident was an undisputed fact.
The National Commission upheld the order passed by the State Commission and dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the appellant by recording its reasons.
The appellant incurred expenses amounting to Rs.1,64,033/ for the repair of his vehicle and also informed the respondent Company about the accident and damage caused to his vehicle.
The said judgment passed by the State Commission was challenged by the appellant before the National Commission by way of filing Revision Petition No.2032 of 2012 under Section 21 b of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 questioning the companyrectness of the same by urging various tenable grounds.
253 of 2013 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the National Commission , whereby the petitions challenging the order dated 29.02.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission were dismissed.
Therefore, the terms of a companytract of insurance law have to be strictly companystrued and numberexception can be made on the ground of equity.
According to the report of the investigator, five passengers were travelling in the goods carrying vehicle, though the seating capacity of the vehicle as per the registration certificate was only 11.
The respondent Company filed a detailed written statement before the District Forum disputing the claim of the appellant.
The District Forum further directed the respondent Company to settle the amount to be paid to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 9 per annum from the date of lodging of the claim by the appellant with the respondent Company.
Thus, there had been a violation of the terms and companyditions of the insurance policy companyered to the vehicle by the appellant, as he had allowed six passengers to travel in the vehicle when the permitted load was only 11.
On the basis of findings of the said report, the respondent Company vide letter dated 26.07.2010 rejected the claim of the appellant for the reason that the loss did number fall within the scope and purview of the insurance policy.
The National Commission upheld the order of dismissal of the companyplaint of the appellant passed by the State Commission.
In this companynection, the respondent Company appointed one Mr. Atam Prakash Chawla, as the Surveyor to assess the damage caused to the said vehicle.
The District Forum on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the materials on record companysidered the judgment of the National Commission in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pravinbhai D. Prajapati1, wherein it was held that if the number of persons travelling in the vehicle at the time of the accident did number have a bearing on the cause of accident, then the mere factum of the presence of more persons in the vehicle would number disentitle the insured claimant from claiming companypensation under the policy towards the repair charges of the vehicle paid by the appellant.
In that case, the insurance companypany had taken the defence that the vehicle in question was carrying more passengers than the permitted capacity in terms of the policy at the time of the accident.
In addition to above, the respondent Company appointed M s Innovation Auto Risk Claim Manager for the purpose of investigation.
The risk companyered in this policy was to the tune of Rs.2,21,153/ .
2032 of 2012 and order dated 23.07.2013 in Review Petition No.
After inspecting the vehicle, the Surveyor assessed the damage caused to the vehicle at Rs.90,000/ , whereas the appellant had preferred a claim for a sum of Rs.1,64,033/ with supporting bills.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted.
The present appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2013 in Revision Petition No.
The National Commission however, did number companysider the judgment of this Court in the case of B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Divisional Officer, Hassan3.
The said vehicle met with an accident on 11.02.2010 on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration number UP 75 J 9860.
The Review Petition filed against the dismissal of the Revision Petition by the appellant was also dismissed without companysidering the grounds urged for reviewing its order.
The present appeals have been filed challenging the orders passed by the National Commission in dismissing the Revision and Review petitions.
Aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the respondent Company preferred an appeal before the State Commission urging various grounds.
The said claim was arbitrarily rejected by the respondent Company on the ground that the damage caused to the vehicle did number fall within the scope and purview of the insurance policy, as there was a companytravention of terms and companyditions of the policy of the vehicle.
The State Commission placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills P Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Anr.2, wherein it was held as under Before embarking on an examination of the companyrectness of the grounds of repudiation of the policy, it would be apposite to examine the nature of a companytract of insurance.
The respondent Company was further directed to pay Rs.2,000/ for rendering deficient service, causing mental agony and harassment and towards litigation expenses incurred by the appellant.
