AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 28.12.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 323 of 2015 in which order dated 08.06.2015 of Korba District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 14/81 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 28.12.2015 of the State Commission.
While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Appellant and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent in the said FA No. 323 of 2015 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP and Respondent was Complainant before the District Forum in CC no. 14/81.
Notice was issued to the Respondent on 01.08.2016. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 03.09.2023 ( Petitioner ) and 06.09.2023 (respondent).
Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that complainant is the registered owner of Tata vehicle and said vehicle was insured with the OP for the period w.e.f. 01.10.2008 to 03.09.2009. On 21.03.2009 at about 9.00 hours at night, the vehicle met with an accident, information of which was given to the Police, and police registered case number 78 of 2009. The information was also given to the OP. The OP appointed the surveyor and OP instructed to get the vehicle repaired. An amount of Rs.9,37,774/- was incurred on the repair of the vehicle. The complainant sent all the documents alongwith repair bill and claim form to the OP but no action was taken by the OP. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 29.12.2012 allowed the complaint of the Complainant. Being aggrieved, the OP preferred an appeal before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated dismissed the Appeal of the OP. Therefore, the OP is before this Commission now in the present RP.
Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 30.06.2015 of the State Commission mainly on the ground that there is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the Respondent and State Commission ignored the said aspect.
Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.
6.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that truck was being driven in an uncontrolled manner and it negligently caused accident, as a result passenger namely Golu Tewat died due to accident. Counsel argued that in the complaint itself, it is reflected that some unauthorized passengers were travelling in the truck. The deceased was neither a driver nor cleaner of the truck. It is further argued that in the instant case, there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy and insurance being contract of ‘uberrima fides’ and it settled law that passengers cannot be carried in a goods truck. Further, the complainant failed to produce the original driving license and has failed to explain the reasons of the passengers travelling in the goods truck. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel on the following judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court / National Commission :
a. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Guljar Singh – CPJ ( 2010) 11 272 ( NC).
b. M/s Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mill Vs. UIIC-Civil Appeal No. 1375 of 2003.
6.2. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that vehicle was covered by the insurance policy and also had a valid good vehicle permit. Further, it is argued that FIR filed does not support the case of the insurance company and insurance company failed to prove that 05 persons were travelling in the vehicle. The State Commission has rightly concluded that license produced before the District Forum is of the same person who was driving the vehicle. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales ( 2022) 9 SCC 31.
It is undisputed that the respondent/complainant is the registered owner of the Tata truck with registration number CG. 04JA/5180, and the relevant permit for the vehicle was issued by the Regional Transport Office (RTO) valid from 25.10.2007 to 24.10.2012 for the transportation of public goods. According to the certificate of registration, the said vehicle is registered under the name of the respondent/complainant, Bhola Singh. Regarding the incident, it is noted that the first information report was filed by Suresh Kumar Yadav, indicating that a helper was present with the vehicle driver. However, there is no mention in the report of any person traveling as a passenger in the vehicle. Although the investigator K. Shivraman's report stated that five persons were sitting in the truck, including the driver, and mentioned that only three persons were authorized, it was found that five persons were traveling without proper authorization. Despite this discrepancy, the entire claim cannot be rejected solely on this basis. In this regard, relevant portion of order of State Commission is reproduced below :
“13. It has been found in the above analysis that the appellant / non-applicant has not been able to prove that 05 persons who were travelling in the vehicle, they were passengers and they were being transported by charging the fair. It has not been mentioned in the first information report which was recorded by Suresh Kumar that those persons were travelling as passengers. In these circumstances it cannot be said that vehicle in question which was goods transporting vehicle, was used for transporting passengers and the insurance conditions have been violated. Therefore, the appellant / non-applicant cannot get the benefit in this case of the judgments relied upon by them.”
In the present case, Ramdas Mahant's driving license indicates that he was authorized to operate a heavy goods vehicle on 21.03.2000, the date of the accident. Regarding the carriage of five persons in the vehicle at the time of the accident, we can draw upon a precedent established by the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Annappa vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 10329 of 2010) pronounced on 30.11.2021. In this case, a similar scenario arose where the insured vehicle, a truck, was transporting 25 passengers at the time of the accident, which exceeded the permissible passenger load for the vehicle. Despite this breach, the Supreme Court upheld the claim of the insured. Relevant para is reproduced below:-
“….the Judgment of this Court in “National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Savitri Devi & Ors.” reported in (2013) 11 SCC 554, is a case where the claim on account of death of passengers in a goods vehicle exceeding the permissible limit was upheld. We find that there is a clear distinction between a third-party claim on account of compensation payable to the passenger in the goods vehicle on account of negligence driving of the vehicle whereas the present case is a case of own damage, which is an independent action not dependent upon the number of passengers carried in goods vehicle.”
In the present case, the claim was filed not for satisfying any Third Party claim, but for claiming the own damage suffered by the insured on account of the accident, and there is nothing on record to show that carrying an extra passenger had contributed in any manner to the accident having taken place. The present case is therefore squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court.
As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269] the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577] held that “the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”
We find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Fora below. There is no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission, hence the same is upheld. Accordingly, RP is dismissed.
The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.