BUTTA RAM vs National Insurance Company Limited

THIS appeal has been preferred against the order of the District Forum, Mandi, dated 30.6.1999, whereby the complaint of the complainant/ appellant has been dismissed.

THERE is no dispute that the Tractor of the complainant/appellant bearing Registration No. HP-32-2077 met with an accident and the insurance policy at the relevant time was in force. According to the appellant/complainant (hereinafter to be referred to as the complainant). There is no dispute that while taking Saria to the field, the Tractor went off the road at Sainj Link Road and got damaged causing loss to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-. The claim was preferred with the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred to as the Insurance Company), but the Insurance Company did not concede to the claim on the ground that at the relevant time, the complainant was carrying some Saria in it whereas the Saria was not intended to be carried out for agricultural purpose, as the Tractor has been insured for agricultural purposes only. In the claim form filled-in by the complainant while lodging claim, the complainant has submitted that the Saria was being taken for construction of his house, which is not an agricultural activity and now the complainant has taken a different stand in his complaint that the Saria was being taken for raising a retaining wall in the field.

The Insurance Company, however, has claimed that in fact 10 quintals of Saria was being taken in the Tractor at the relevant time which in fact by any stretch of imagination cannot be for agricultural purpose and there is clear violation of the terms of the policy which is intended for agricultural purposes only.

FROM the material placed on record, we find that it has not been established by the Insurance Company that 10 quintals of Saria was being carried in the Tractor, although it is true that some Saria was being taken by the Tractor at the relevant time. Further, it is also not established whether such Saria was being carried by the Tractor for non-agricultural purpose. It is settled principle of law that the purpose of the insurance policy is to compensate the insured for the loss he has suffered and the provisions of the contract of insurance must be read down so as to serve the main purpose of the policy that is to indemnify the damage caused to the vehicle. In B.V. Nagaraju''s case, reported as II (1996) CPJ 18 (SC)=(1996) 4 SCC 647=I (1997) ACC 123 (SC), the Hon''ble Supreme Court while interpreting the terms of the policy, has held that merely by lifting a person or two, or even three, by the driver or the cleaner of the vehicle, without the knowledge of the owner, cannot be said to be such a fundamental breach that the owner should, in all events, be denied indemnification. The misuse of the vehicle was somewhat irregular though, but not fundamental in nature so as to put an end to the contract, unless some factors existed which, by themselves, had gone to contribute to the causing of the accident. The exclusion term of the insurance policy must be read down so as to serve the main purpose of the policy that is to indemnify the damage caused to the vehicle.

MERELY some Saria was being taken by the complainant in the Tractor cannot, in our opinion, defeat the claim of the complainant unless it is shown that carrying of Saria has contributed to the cause of accident. As already stated, there is no satisfactory evidence on the record to show that the Tractor was carrying 10 quintals of Saria as alleged by the Insurance Company and whether it has contributed to the cause of accident and consequent loss. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in a case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Dhalu Devi & Ors., reported as 1997 (1) Shimla Law Cases 437 (HP). This case is distinguishable, as it deals with the vehicles against the third party risks and does not cover any contractual liability. In the present case, the question involved is of liability arising under the terms of contract.

THE next question that requires consideration is as to what amount of compensation is to be awarded in favour of the complainant. No evidence has been led on this issue and the case is required to be remanded to the District Forum.

IN the light of what is discussed above, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the District Forum is directed to allow both the parties to lead evidence on the question of determination of quantum of compensation and the District Forum thereafter shall decide the matter in accordance with the law. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.

There is no order as to costs. Order set aside.