United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pratap Singh & 2 Ors

V.K.Jain, J

The complainant namely Jai Prakash owned an orchard and used to sell fruits and vegetables in different markets. On 14.08.2015, he loaded 92 boxes containing apple, in a vehicle owned by respondent Pratap Singh, for being carried to Subzi Mandi, Parwanu in District Solan of Himachal Pradesh. The said vehicle had been insured with the petitioner United India Insurance Company Limited. The vehicle having met with an accident, the boxes containing the apples fell down and the apples got damaged in the process. A complaint was then instituted by him with the concerned District Forum impleading the owner of the vehicle, insurer and driver of the vehicle as the OPs in the complaint.

The District Forum, vide its order dated 29.03.2017, allowed the Consumer Complaint against the owner and driver of the vehicle and directed them to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant alongwith compensation quantified at Rs.15,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.4,000/-.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the owner as well as the driver of the vehicle approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 02.01.2018, the State Commission allowed their appeal but directed the petitioner company to re-imburse the complainant to the extent this re-imbursement was allowed by the District Forum. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Section II of the insurance policy, which to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

SECTION - II : LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES

Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the Schedule hereto the Company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle against all sums including claimant's cost and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the vehicle.

damage to property caused by the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the vehicle.

PROVIDED ALWAYS THAT :-

< >< >

xxxxx

The Company shall not be liable in respect of damage to property belonging to or held in trust by or in the custody of the insured or a member of the insured's household or being conveyed by the insured vehicle.

< >< >

It would thus be seen that the insurer is not liable to re-imburse the insured for any damage to the goods which are being carried in an insured vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be directed to re-imburse the complainant for the loss suffered by him on account of the damage to the apples which were being carried for sale. The order passed by the State Commission therefore, cannot be sustained. However, as far as the owner of the vehicle namely Partap Singh is concerned, he in my view, is liable to re-imburse the complainant for the loss suffered by him, since it was the driver employed by him who was driving the insured vehicle when it met with an accident, causing damage to the apples.

The learned counsel for the vehicle owner submits that since the apples were being transported by the complainant for selling the same in the markets, the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer of the vehicle owner, he having hired or availed the services of the vehicle owner for a commercial purpose. Admittedly, no such plea was taken in the written version filed by the vehicle owner Sh. Partap Singh before the concerned District Forum. Had such a plea been taken, it would have been possible for the complainant to respond to the same and claim that since the apples were being sold by him for the purpose of earning his livelihood, he was a consumer of Sh. Partap Singh. In fact, this is the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant during the course of hearing today. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the objection raised by the learned counsel for the vehicle owner.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order is set aside and the vehicle owner namely Sh. Partap Singh is directed to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant within six weeks from today failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint. The Revision Petition stands disposed of.