T.L. Sahu vs United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner T.L.Sahu against the order dated 25.03.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Appeal No.FA/14/647.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant has insured his vehicle from the respondent No.1/opposite party No.1 w.e.f. from 12.11.2011 to 11.11.2012. The vehicle met with an accident on 04.06.2012 and was severely damaged. The Insurance claim was filed before the Insurance Company, which was repudiated vide their repudiation letter dated 10.01.2013. The claim was repudiated on the ground of violation of condition of the policy that the vehicle was being run as a commercial vehicle. The complaint was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (in short 'the District Forum'). The complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company on the basis of violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The District Forum dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 08.09.2014. The complainant then preferred an appeal bearing No.FA/14/647 before the State Commission, which was also dismissed vide order dated 25.03.2015 passed by the State Commission. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.7,32,745/-. It was argued that the report of the surveyor cannot be rejected without any cogent reason. Both the fora below have not given any reason for not accepting the report of the surveyor.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company stated that the vehicle was registered for personal use. However, the same was being used for hire and reward as would be clear from the observation of the State Commission:-

"In first Information Report (OP-3) the same things were mentioned. During the investigation conducted by the Surveyor, who was appointed by the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1), statement of the appellant (complainant) was recorded which is marked as OP-5. In the statement also it is mentioned that the vehicle was booked for hire/reward. The statement bears signature of the appellant (complainant) and one Kamal Narayan Sahu. Shri Satish Katyanan, Surveyor and Loss assessor has also mentioned in his Motor Sport Survey Report dated 07.06.2012 (OP-6) that statement of the owner of insured vehicle at the time of accident was recorded by him in presence of the insured's son."

It was argued that the final surveyor also confirmed the commercial use of the vehicle and therefore, it was a clear violation of terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, no claim is payable.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 State Bank of India states that if the claim is paid by the Insurance Company, the claim amount should come to the bank so that outstanding loan is cleared. It has been alleged by the complainant that the respondent No.2 has not taken up the matter with the Insurance Company rather respondent No.2 is pressing payment of the instalments as per the loan agreement. Learned counsel stated that the respondent No.2 has financed the vehicle and therefore, respondent No.2 is responsible to recover the loan amount from the complainant. No deficiency can be attributed to the respondent No.2 for pursuing the recovery from the complainant.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record. Though there is no mention of commercial use of the vehicle by the final surveyor in his report, however, the spot surveyor in his report has mentioned that the vehicle was used for hire and reward. The State Commission has also observed that the use of vehicle for hire and reward is supported by the FIR also. Both the fora below have given concurrent finding of fact that the vehicle was being used for hire and reward purpose, though the vehicle was registered only for personal use. Thus, it is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Though the surveyor report does not mention commercial use of the vehicle, however the fact cannot be reassessed at the level of revision petition by this Commission as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held the following:

"23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons."

This Commission in some recent cases has taken a view that if a vehicle is registered for personal use and is being run for hire and reward, then the case can be covered under the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC) and has allowed the payment of insurance claim upto 75% of the claim if any condition of the policy has been violated. This Commission in the following cases has taken a view that if the vehicle was being used as a taxi, the claim could be allowed on non-standard basis.

"RP No.1490 of 2011, Om Prakash Vs. United India Insurance co. Ltd. &Anr. decided on16.08.2016(NC) RP No.949 of 2011, Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Gafur Alamgeer Sayyad , decided on 14.03.2014 (NC)."

Based on the above discussion, in my view, the complainant deserves indemnification of the loss in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (supra). In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow only 50% of the amount assessed by the surveyor i.e. Rs.3,66,372/- (50% of Rs.7,32,745/-) to be paid by the Insurance Company to the complainant.

Accordingly, the Revision Petition No.1428 of 2015 is partly allowed and respondent Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.3,66,372/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, this amount shall carry interest @8% p.a. from the date of this order till actual payment. Parties to bear their own costs.