Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 492 (CHH)

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. DUVARURAM

2006-11-07

R.S.AWASTHI, V.K.AGARWAL, VEENA MISRA

body2006
ORDER As per Hon 'ble Shri R.S. Awastbi, Member :- 1. This is an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('the act') directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Raipur on 08/09/2005 (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for brevity) in complaint no. 106/2005. 2. District Forum allowing the complaint has directed the OP to pay Rs.3,50,000/- along with a compensation of Rs.10,000/-, interest at 9% from 261 05/2005, and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the complaint to the Complainant. 3. Averments of the complaint are that she owned one Tractor and a tractor trolley registered under number CG-05 6228 number CG-05 6227 respectively. The said tractor and the trolley were burnt by Naxalites on 8/04/2002. It is not in dispute that the said tractor and the trolley were insured by the OP and comprehensive coverage was available to the complainant on the date of incident. 4. On intimating the OP and submitting the claim documents, the insurer has declined the same as no claim. It was submitted on behalf of the OP that the tractor and the trolley were engaged in construction of road in village Pakhanjur. 5. Learned counsel for the OP/ Appellant assailing the impugned order submitted that the District Forum has failed to consider the fact that the tractor was registered with the Transport Department for agricultural purposes and could not be used for any other purpose. It was prayed that the claim was rightly repudiated on the grounds of breach of conditions. It was also submitted that the intimation of the incident was furnished to the OP after a long delay. It was also submitted that the compensation was awarded in excess of the surveyor's assessment. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent/Complainant defending the impugned order submitted that the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes and was on way to pick up agricultural labour at the time of the incident. It was also submitted that there was no breach of conditions of the policy. 7. We have gone through the records of the complaint. As per the copies of the registration papers, the tractor and the trolley were registered for agriculture purposes. 8. A complaint was made to the police by one Bijan Narendra Badhai Diwan of contractor Sukhlal Raghunath. It was also submitted that there was no breach of conditions of the policy. 7. We have gone through the records of the complaint. As per the copies of the registration papers, the tractor and the trolley were registered for agriculture purposes. 8. A complaint was made to the police by one Bijan Narendra Badhai Diwan of contractor Sukhlal Raghunath. Copy of the First Information Report made to the police shows that offence no.02/02 under various sections of the IPC was registered on 9/04/2002 by the Police Station Kasansur, District Garhchiroli. The claim that the said tractor was burnt by the Naxalites has not been disputed. 9. Said FIR clearly also mentions that the tractor in question was engaged in collection of material for road construction. 10. In view of the FIR and the facts and the circumstances of the complaint, we find it difficult to accept the complainant’s version of the incident that the tractor, was on way to pick up labour for agricultural operations. We are convinced that the said tractor was being used for non-agricultural purposes in violations of the terms of registration under the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, in our opinion, the tractor was being used against the terms of policies. Question for consideration is the effect of breach of terms of policy. 11. Learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to the citation Natwar Parikh & Co, Ltd. Vs. State of Karnatka Apex Court has in the said case held that a tractor and a trailer when combined would constitute a goods carriage and necessitate a permit for use on road and are liable for road tax, In our opinion, the said citation is altogether on a different point. Similarly, the citations New India Insurance Co. Vs. Papaiah and others and Raja Beti and another Vs. Smt. Ramshri and another relate to the liability of the insurer towards third parties and accidents relating to motor vehicles being plied in violation of motor vehicle rules. The present appeal relates to the claim regarding own damage. Therefore, the said citations do not assist the appellant. 12. From the facts and material played before us, we are convinced that the tractor and the trolley were being used in the state of Maharashtra for other than agricultural purpose i.e. collection of materials for construction of road. This is no doubt a clear violation of term of policy. Therefore, the said citations do not assist the appellant. 12. From the facts and material played before us, we are convinced that the tractor and the trolley were being used in the state of Maharashtra for other than agricultural purpose i.e. collection of materials for construction of road. This is no doubt a clear violation of term of policy. Although the policy terms do not lay down any restriction on the territory within which the vehicle is to be used, but motor Vehicle Act and Rules framed there under lay down certain restrictions on the use of the vehicle the purpose for which they are used as well as the state within which they can be plied. Under the circumstances, there is definite breach of the term sand conditions of the policy 13. It may also be noted that the intimation of the incident was also given highly belatedly to the appellant / insurer which is also a contravention of terms of policy Thus, we find that though the surveyor was appointed on the report of the complainant / respondent yet the complaint appears to have committed breach of terms of policy, in the above regard also. 14. it would therefore be clear that the insured tractor was being plied in total breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy issued by the appellant and that it was sent to a territory outside Chhattisgarh to the state of Maharashtra which resulted in the unfortunate event of the insured vehicle being burnt by miscreants. It appears that the event as above was the result and consequence of breach of terms of policy mentioned above. Hence, breach as above would constitute fundamental breach of policy. In the circumstances, the appellant/ insurer, by repudiating the claim after due consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to have committed deficiency in service. Consequently, the complainant's complaint cannot succeed. 15. In view of the forgoing reasons, the impugned order allowing the complaint and awarding compensation in favour of the complainant deserves to be set aside The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The complaint stands dismissed. Appeal Allowed.