AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SHIV Dayal filed his complaint before the District Forum, Gorakhpur which was registered in the District Forum, Gorakhpur as Complaint No. 8/92. The District Forum has given their judgment in this case dated 1.4.92 wherein they have held that the complainant is not entitled to receive any relief and they have rejected the complaint.
AGGRIEVED by the said order of the District Forum, Gorakhpur, Shiv Dayal has filed this appeal before the State Commission. During the proceedings in this Appeal it was considered necessary that the file of the Complaint No. 8/ 92 be also obtained from the District Forum, Gorakhpur. On the next date 15.4.93 as fixed for arguments in this appeal, the file of the Complaint case of the District Forum, Gorakhpur was also available and the appellant (complainant) was represented by Mr. S.B. Lal, Advocate and the respondent (Insurance Company), was represented by Sri. M.S. Kotwal, Advocate. On behalf of the respondent great emphasis has been laid on the point that the complainant after alleged loss of the vehicle in question had lodged an F.I.R. with the Incharge, Police Station, Centt. Gorakhpur wherein it was stated that the Jeep No. U.M.B. 8665 which was stolen in the service of the speed post of the Post Office and on it Govt. of India had been written. It has been contended on behalf of. the Insurance Company that the said vehicle was lent out by the complainant to the Post Office Department and as such it was being used for a different purpose than shown in the Insurance Policy covering that Vehicle. In this case the Insurance Company referred to the policy in question which covered a period of one year from 4.8.89 to 3.8.90 (and this one year period covered the date of loss of the vehicle as 30.5.90.) We find that in the Insurance Policy under the heading "Limitations as to use is written specifically as use only for social domestic and pleasure purpose and for the insured''s business". On a reference to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy we find that under the heading:-"General exception" under Clause 3(a) thereunder, it has been provided as:- "The company shall not be liable under this policy in respect of being used otherwise than in accordance with the limitations as to use".
The Insurance Company contended that, since the stolen vehicle in question has been stated by the complainant himself in the F.I.R. to being used in the service of the Post Office Department, and with the printing of words Govt. of India on the vehicle the exception clause of the Insurance Policy is clearly attracted and that the complainant is not entitled to receive any claim amount, on this account under the policy in question.
DURING the course of arguments in the appeal the Appellant (Complainant), when confronted on this specific argument could only put up the plea that while lodging the F.I.R. to the Police Department the complainant was in disturbed state of mind and that he had not seen as to what has been written in the F.I.R. although he had signed the F.I.R. We have considered this point and we find that the explanation given on behalf of the Complainant (Appellant), is not acceptable. The above stated point is the main point on which the decision about the admissibility or otherwise of the claim depends. We have considered the arguments on this point and have seen the record of the District Forum also. Having considered the detail arguments put forward before us, we find that in view of the clear cut provisions and the terms and conditions as contained in the Insurance Policy in question as aforesaid and in view of the admission of the complainant in the F.I.R. lodged by him with Police Department the case comes under the exceptional clause of the Insurance Policy in question. As such the complainant does not become entitled to receive any claim amount for the alleged loss of the vehicle in question from the Insurance Company.
THE appeal and the complaint are rejected and the complainant is not found to be entitled to receive any relief. Appeal dismissed.