UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD vs K Kannusamy

THE United India Insurance Company Ltd., petitioner herein which was the opposite party before the District Forum has filed this Revision Petition against the order dated 7.7.2006 passed in appeal No. 45/03 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamilnadu (in short ''the State Commission'') whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed against the order dated 25.7.2002 passed by the District Forum in COP No. 240/2000.

COMPLAINANT/Respondent got his vehicle insured with the Petitioner under Commercial Vehicle ''B'' policy for the period from 18.3.1999 to 17.3.2000. The vehicle was left at Balan Workshop at Madurai for repairs. The engine of the lorry was dismantled and kept for carrying out repairs. There was a fire accident in a nearby workshop and it spread over to the workshop where the Respondent''s lorry was left for repairs. The engine of Respondent''s lorry was damaged. Respondent filed a claim for Rs. 98.040 towards the repair charges. The Surveyor appointed by the Petitioner assesses the loss at Rs. 44,998. However, he expressed his doubt whether the claim was admissible as at the time of fire accident, engine was not the part of the vehicle. The Petitioner repudiated the claim of the Respondent on the ground that the policy covered only loss or carriage to the motor vehicle and/or its accessories "whilst thereon". The Respondent being aggrieved filed the complaint before the District Forum.

DISTRICT Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay Rs. 44,998 to the Respondent being the cost of repair works; Rs. 10,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 1,000 towards the costs.

PETITIONER being aggrieved, filed appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this Revision Petition.

LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has been heard at length. Respondent is not present despite service. Proceeded ex parte.

LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that since the engine was separated from the lorry the same was not a part of motor vehicle and. therefore, not covered under the policy. He further contended that as per terms of the policy, the Petitioner was obliged to indemnify the insured against the loss or damage to the motor vehicle and its accessories while they are in the lorry and not otherwise. Since the engine was not a part of the lorry, the Petitioner was not liable to reimburse to the Respondent for the loss suffered by him due to damage to the engine. We do not find any substance in this submission. Duration of Motor Vehicle Policy is of one year and it remains in operation for 24 hours, a day, 7 days a week. 30 days a month and 12 months a year. It covers all engagements of the motor vehicle, i.e. while it is being driven, kept stationary, left unattended on the road, under repair or for another purposes. When the engine is removed for repairs it does not cease to be a part of lorry. It is not unusual for the motor vehicle to have a breakdown. If the engine is taken out for carrying out some repairs then it does not cease to be a part of the motor vehicle. At times, unless engine is taken out, it may not be possible to repair the same or its part. It is too much on the part of the Insurance Company to contend that once a part is taken out it ceases to be covered under the policy.

WE find support for the view taken by us from the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of Shivaji Dayanu Patil and Another v. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More, II (1991) ACC 306 (SC)=AIR 1991 SC 1769, in which the Supreme Court has observed that the word ''use'' in the context of motor vehicles, has to be construed in a wider sense to include the period when the vehicle is not moving and is stationary, being either parked on the road and when it is not in a position to move due to some breakdown or mechanical defect. The expression "use of a motor vehicle" in Section 92-A covers accidents which occur both when the vehicle is in motion or when it is stationary. The facts of the case were that a tanker while proceeding along National Highway No. 4 after colliding with a motor lorry was lying on the side. The Insurance Company had contended that after collision the use of the tanker had ceased and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to reimburse for the loss suffered. The Supreme Court rejecting the said contention and upholding the view taken by the High Court held as under: In our opinion, the word "use" has a wider connotation to cover the period when the vehicle is not moving and is stationary and the use of a vehicle does not cease on account of the vehicle having been rendered immobile on account of a breakdown or mechanical defect or accident in the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petrol tanker was not in use at the time when it was lying on its side after the collision with the truck.

FOR the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this revision Petition and dismiss the same with no as to costs as there is no representation on behalf of the Respondent. Revision Petition dismissed.