S.M. Kantikar ORDER
Dr. B.C. Gupta, (Presiding Member)
1. This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 07.07.2016, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. A/15/595, "Koustubh Gajanan Dixit versus The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.", vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 09.04.2015, passed by the District Forum Ratnagiri in consumer complaint No. 35/2013, filed by the present petitioner, dismissing the said complaint, was upheld.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant is the owner of a Ford Fiesta Car No. MH08R 8803, which was insured with the Opposite party (OP), Oriental Insurance Company for the period 13.08.2012 to 12.08.2013. It is stated in the consumer complaint that the complainant wanted to take the said car to Pune (Maharashtra) for servicing, but since he was occupied with some personal work, he asked his childhood friend Shridhar Shantaram Athavale to take the car to Pune on 04.01.2013. Another friend of the complainant, Sainath Narayan Kalzunkar told him that his acquaintance Mr. Panda, Manager at RFPL wanted to go to Pune with his wife and hence, they decided that the car shall be taken to Pune on 04.01.2013 by Shridhar Shantaram Athavale alongwith Mr. Panda and his wife. However, when the vehicle started back from Pune on the next day, i.e., 05.01.2013 after servicing, alongwith Mr. Panda and his wife, it met with an accident at 3:30 AM on 06.01.2013, when it dashed against a tree near Chikhali, Ta-guhagar. The car was towed to Kolhapur and taken to the Planet Ford Service Centre. The OP Insurance Company was informed about the incident and claim was also filed with them. As admitted by him in the consumer complaint, the complainant wrongly stated in the claim form that he had been driving the car at the time of the accident. However, despite submitting all necessary documents to the Insurance Company, the claim was not paid, rather the same was rejected on the ground that the vehicle was being used for hiring purpose. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP Insurance Company to pay him a sum of 5,87,700/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. and also compensation on various other grounds.
3. The complaint was resisted by the OP Insurance Company by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that the car was rented out to Mr. Panda, Manager, RGPL which was violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Further, the car was being driven by Shridhar Shantaram Athavale at the time of the accident, whereas the complainant made a wrong statement at the time of filing the claim that he himself was driving the said car. As per the investigation got carried out by the OP Insurance Company, the driver Shridhar Shantaram Athavale gave an affidavit, saying that the vehicle was hired by Mr. Panda and his wife. Mr. Panda also stated in his affidavit that he had hired the car from the complainant for travelling to Pune. The complainant had, therefore, no right to demand any compensation from the OP Insurance Company due to his fraudulent conduct, and hence, the complaint deserved to be dismissed.
4. The District Forum, after considering the averments of the parties, dismissed the consumer complaint vide their order dated 09.04.2015 and brought out clearly in their order that Shridhar Shantaram Athavale was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, but the complainant had wrongly and falsely stated that he himself was driving the vehicle. Moreover, the vehicle had been given on hire, which was against the terms and conditions of the Policy in question. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission.
5. The State Commission observed in their order that the complainant had suppressed material facts from the Insurance Company by making false and misleading statements before them and hence, he was not entitled to the insurance claim. Being aggrieved against this order of the State Commission, the complainant is before us by way of the present revision petition.
6. During hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has drawn attention to the repudiation letter dated 01.11.2013 sent by the OP Insurance Company to the complainant and stated that the claim had been rejected on the ground that the vehicle had been given for hiring purpose. The learned consumer fora below should not have disallowed the claim in total, but at least, the claim could have been allowed on non-standard basis. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to an order passed by this Commission in "Vijay Kumar Digambarappa Khanpure vs. Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr." [RP No. 3001/2015 decided on 22.02.2016].
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the OP Insurance Company stated that for violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant was not liable to be given any compensation by the OP Insurance Company. It had been amply proved from the affidavits filed by the driver of the vehicle as well as by Mr. Panda that the vehicle had been given on hire by the complainant. Further, the complainant had himself admitted in the consumer complaint that while making the claim before the OP Insurance Company, he had wrongly stated that he was the person driving the vehicle at the time of the incident. The facts have been brought out in the report of the investigator appointed by the OP Insurance Company. Both the consumer fora below had, therefore, rejected the claim in toto, based on two main grounds that the complainant had made false and misleading statement before the OP Insurance Company, while filing the claim about the person driving the vehicle and also the vehicle had been given on hire in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.
8. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
9. The main line of argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the complainant is entitled at least to the claim on non-standard basis. In the order made by this Commission in "Vijay Kumar Digambarappa Khanpure vs. Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr." (surpa), it has been brought out that if a private vehicle is given on hire, it may not constitute a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the Policy. In the said order, mention has been made of an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "B.V. Nagaraju Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [MANU/SC/0509/1996 : (1996) 4 SCC 647]" as well, as the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "National Insurance Company Vs. Nitin Khandelwal [MANU/SC/7639/2008 : 56 IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC)] and in "Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [MANU/SC/0192/2010 : II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC)] ". In the present case, it has been established that the vehicle had been given on hire to Mr. Panda and his wife for travelling to Pune. There are affidavits on record in support of this contention as brought out in the report of the investigator. However, in addition to the issue of hire, there is another aspect of the case that the complainant made a false and misleading statement before the OP Insurance Company, while submitting his claim that he was himself driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. This version is admitted by the complainant in the body of the consumer complaint as well. The State Commission as well as the District Forum have, therefore, rightly observed that the complainant tried to suppress material facts from the OP Insurance Company by making false and misleading statements before them. In the light of these facts, it is held that the consumer fora rightly came to the conclusion that the complainant was not entitled to be granted any compensation in terms of the insurance policy in question. There is, therefore, no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the consumer fora below. Further, it is a settled legal proposition that interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction is to be made only if there is a material defect or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings recorded by the consumer fora below. We are supported in this contention in the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Rubi Chandra Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [MANU/SC/0409/2011 : (2011) 11 SCC 269]".
10. Based on the discussion above, it is held that there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed and the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below are upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.