BALENDRA GAUTAM vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the State Commission partly allowing the appeal.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner owned a truck which was covered by insurance with the respondents.This truck collided with a parked tractor-trolley on 14.2.1997 but the truck sped on. It appears that the collision resulted damages to oil pressure pipe, resulting in leakage of engine oil, leading to seizure of the engine. The respondent company offered Rs. 18,059/- less Rs. 850/- on account of salvage which was not accepted by the petitioner. On the petitioner filing the complaint before the District Forum, complaint was allowed to the extent of Rs. 16,050/- ; on an appeal being filed by the petitioner, the State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum with the modification that the awarded amount would carry interest @ 12% from 5.8.1997 till the date of payment. Petitioner has come up in revision before us against this order. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that his vehicle was insured and met with an accident resulting in its loss - hence it is covered by the policy. Consequential loss or damage is yet to be defined. Therefore, the plea taken by the respondent company is not supported by facts of this case or by law on the subject, hence the order passed by both the lower Forums need to be set aside.

Only point involved is whether the truck was lost due to an accident ? If not, then can it be deemed to be covered by the terms of the policy ? Facts of the case lead us to see that the truck collided with a trolley, yet the driver kept driving the truck, allegedly on the apprehension of his being beaten by the villagers. He did not realise that oil pressure pipe was damaged-draining out the oil leading to engine''s seizure. The story of apprehension of his being beaten has not been believed as the time of collusion was mid-night and the place of incident was far off the village. Obviously there was no damage to the truck on account of accident directly, his driving it for a certain distance itself is a proof of the fact. Had the truck driver stopped the vehicle, then at least the engine would not have "seized". Consequential loss could be said to be the loss occasioned, in this case by the recklessness on the part of driver, to keep driving after the collision resulting in an avoidable mishap to the vehicle. Seizure of the engine is not the direct result of the accident but only an avoidable off-shoot of the collision. This is not covered by the terms of the policy. Both the lower Forums have examined this point at length and we find no merit in the arguments advanced before us by the petitioner. We find no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order of both the lower Forums. The order of the State Commission is upheld. Revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Revision Petition dismissed.