State Consumer Disputes Redressal CommissionNew India Assurance Co. vs Salim Khan on 19 May, 2010APPEAL NO: 1108/2009
 

 


 

The
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
 

Having
its Regional office at
 

Nehru
Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
 

 


 

						Opposite
party-appellant
 

 


 

				Vs.
 

 


 

Salim
Khan s/o Mustad Ali
 

r/o
Khatri Earthmovers,
 

9/761,
Malviya Nagar,
 

Jaipur.
 

						Complainant-respondent
 

 


 

19.5.2010
 

 


 

Before:
 

 


 

	Mr.Justice
Sunil Kumar Garg-President
 

	Mr.Shashi
Kumar Pareek -MemberMr.Rishipal
Agarwal counsel for the appellants
 

Mr.Umesh
Chaudhary counsel for the respondent 

 

					


 

 BY
THE STATE COMMISSION  

 

					


 

	This
appeal has been filed by the   appellants Insurance Co.  against
order dated 30.6.09   passed by the District Forum,Jaipur Ist  in
complaint no. 623/07   by which the2complaint
of the complainant respondent  was  allowed in the manner that the
appellants Insurance Co. was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as
compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1500/- as cost of litigation
and further on point of assessment of loss, the District Forum had
asked the appellants to decide the claim of the complainant
respondent within two months and after deciding that claim the amount
as assessed by the appellants be paid to the complainant within one
month failing which the appellants would pay interest @ 12% p.a. from
the date of passing of the order.2.	It
arises in the following circumstances-That the complainant respondent
had filed a complaint against the appellants Insurance Co. before the
District Forum, Jaipur Ist on 28.1.08 inter alia stating that his
vehicle  known as JCB bearing registration no. RJ 14 E 0903 was got
insured by the complainant with the appellants Insurance Co.  for the
period 2.6.06 to 1.6.07 for a sum of Rs.12,24,300/-. It was further
stated in the complaint that on 20.2.07 when the vehicle in question
was going from Sapotra to Aluda village, an accident had taken place
when the driver of the vehicle in question tried  to save the tractor
which was coming from opposite direction as a result of which the
vehicle in question was unbalanced and turned down towards road side
and had fallen in a deep ditch and damage was caused. It was further
stated in the complaint that information of that accident was given
to3the appellants Insurance Co. and
a spot surveyor was appointed who had made inspection on 20.2.07 and
further a  second surveyor Mr.Anil Kumar was appointed who had made
inspection on 7.3.07 but the claim of the complainant respondent was
repudiated by the appellants Insurance Co. through letter dated 
26.3.07 in the following manner-" We have been informed by
the surveyor that damages to vehicle have caused because of its
overturning in road side ditch and as per policy condition IMT 47
claim is not maintainable. In this regard if you have any
clarification kindly inform us within ten days, otherwise we will
close the file as per norms."Thereafter the present
complaint was filed by the complainant claiming Rs. 4,50,000/- as
compensation for  damage to the vehicle alongwith other claims.A reply was filed by the
appellants Insurance Co. before the District Forum, Jaipur Ist on
11.3.08 and in the reply they have taken the same pleas which were
taken by them in the repudiation letter dated 26.3.07 and it was
prayed that claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the
appellants and complaint be dismissed.After hearing the parties, the
District Forum,4Jaipur Ist through impugned
order dated 30.6.09 had found the repudiation of claim not justified
and had further came to the conclusion that claim was wrongly
repudiated by the appellants taking into consideration benefit of 
condition IMT 47 of the policy  and  further came to the conclusion
that condition IMT 47 of the policy is not applicable in the present
case and  on point of determination of loss, the matter was left
again at the discretion of the appellants Insurance Co.   as stated
above.Agrieved from the said order
dated 30.6.09 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur Ist, this appeal
has been filed by the appellants Insurance Co.3.	In
this appeal the main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants is that claim of the complainant respondent was rightly
repudiated by the appellants as damages to vehicle was caused because
of its overturning on road side ditch and as per  condition IMT 47 of
the policy, the  claim was  not maintainable  and the findings of the
District Forum are wholly illegal, erroneous and perverse one and,
therefore, the same  could not be sustained and liable to be  quashed
and set aside and this appeal deserves to be allowed.4.	On
the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has
supported the impugned order passed by the District Forum.55.	We
have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well
as for the respondent  and gone through the entire materials
available on record.6.	In
our considered opinion, the findings recorded by the District Forum
are liable to be confirmed one as claim of the complainant respondent
was wrongly repudiated by the appellants Insurance Co. taking
exclusion of condition no. IMT 47 of the policy and thus the District
Forum had rightly held that  condition no. IMT 47 of the policy was 
not applicable in the present case as the accident had taken place
when the tractor came suddenly from the opposite side and in trying
to save the   tractor, the insured vehicle became unbalanced and
turned down towards road side  12-15 feet deep ditch and  the same
was damaged.7.	It
may further be stated here that  since the vehicle in question was 
insured with the appellants Insurance Co. and if the same was damaged
in the accident as stated above, the appellants Insurance Co. could
not escape from its liability from indemnifying the loss to the
complainant respondent  that was due to accident.8.	For
the reasons stated above, the appellants were not justified in
repudiating the claim of the respondent complainant and the
appellants have  repudiated the claim of the complainant respondent
without any basis and on wrong assumption and in an arbitrary manner
and in view of this, the findings of the District Forum   are liable
to be confirmed as6they
are based on correct appreciation of entire materials and evidence
available on record and they do not suffer from any basic infirmity,
illegality or perversity and this appeal deserves to be dismissed .Accordingly, the appeal filed by
the appellants is dismissed.It may be stated here that two
months' time from today  is given to the appellants Insurance Co. for
assessing the amount of compensation to be paid by the appellants to
the complainant respondent and that may be paid as per directions
given by the District Forum, Jaipur Ist in the impugned order dated
30.6.09.It is further made clear that if
the complainant respondent remains dis-satisfied with the amount of
compensation decided by the appellants Insurance Co., he would have
fresh cause of action for filing the fresh complaint.Member							President