AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
APPELLANT, the insurer, was opposite party before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. It is aggrieved by the impugned order of the State Commission directing it to pay Rs. 5,34,797/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the insurance claim till payment. APPELLANT was further burdened with Rs. 3,000/- as costs.
RESPONDENT No. 1, the first complainant, had insured its vehicle (Ashoka Leyland Comet) with the appellant and had allowed the second respondent, the complainant No. 2, to ply the vehicle on hire basis. The total value of the vehicle under the hire purchase agreement was Rs. 8,33,813/-. The vehicle was comprehensive insured with the appellant. On 6.4.2000, the second respondent had taken 340 bags of cement in the vehicle to Andhra Pradesh and on the way while the vehicle was parked for a while when the driver was taking dinner, the vehicle was found missing. Theft was reported to the police. Claim made to the Insurance Company was repudiated by its order dated 18.7.2001 on the ground "that on going through your claim papers, we noticed that some unknown and unauthorised passengers/persons were travelled at the time of vehicle stolen. So, that resulted in or directly contributed to occurrence of loss.
This led the complainant to file complaint before the State Commission. In spite of service of notice, appellant did not appear and on the basis of the evidence on record, State Commission allowed the complaint with the result aforementioned.
NOW this appeal. It is not disputed that there was proper notice of service on the appellant. It was submitted that the notices were lost in the office. We are concerned with the principle of natural justice. As far as State Commission was concerned, the proper notice had been given and the appellant did not come forward to defend the complaint in spite of opportunity. It was then submitted that certain persons were being carried in the vehicle which was in breach of the terms of the insurance policy. But when no evidence has been produced before the State Commission, this argument before us has no value. We do not find any error either of law or fact in the impugned order of the State Commission for us to take a different view. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.