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 06.10.2015, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 1192/2014, "National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Rajesh Kumar," vide which, while allowing the said appeal, the order dated 21.10.2014, passed by the District Forum Kurukshetra, partly allowing the complaint No. 24/2013, filed by the present petitioner, was set aside.
2. The facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner Rajesh Kumar is the owner of a Tata Indica Car, which was insured with the opposite party (OP), National Insurance Company Limited for the period 19.05.2011 to 18.05.2012 for a sum of 2,69,040/-. It is stated in the consumer complaint that on 01.06.2011, at about 10:15 P.M., the said car was snatched from the father of the complainant, Thakur Singh by three persons when he was going to meet his relatives from village Bhatt Majra to village Nanehra. An FIR under section 394 IPC was lodged with the Police Station Sadar, Ambala and an intimation was also given to the insurance company. A claim for the theft of the car under the insurance policy was also lodged with the OP insurance company, but the same was not settled. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the opposite party to release a sum of 2,69,040/- under the policy, alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and a sum of 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony etc. and 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The OP Insurance company resisted the complaint by filing written reply before the District Forum in which they stated that the insured had taken a private car package policy from them, but he violated the terms and conditions of the said policy, because the vehicle in question was being used as a taxi for hire purposes. The said fact was clearly made out from the FIR registered with the Police. The Insurance Company discovered the above fact upon investigation into the case. They wrote a letter dated 12.10.2011 to the insured to explain why his claim should not be repudiated. However, the complaint failed to send any reply to that letter, following which, the claim was repudiated.
4. The District Forum, after taking into account, the averments of the parties, allowed the claim on 'non-standard basis' and held the complainant eligible to get payment of 75% of the sum insured from the insurance company. The District Forum relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case, "National Insurance Company vs. Nitin Khandelwal" [MANU/SC/7639/2008 : 2008 (3) Apex Court Judgments 175 (SC)]. Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the OP Insurance Company challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed and the consumer complaint was dismissed. The State Commission held that there was fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy on the part of the complainant, as the vehicle was being used as a taxi. Being aggrieved against the said order, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.
5. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Forum had taken a correct view that in the case of theft of the vehicle, the nature of use of the same was not a relevant factor. The District Forum had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nitin Khandelwal" (supra) and rightly allowed the claim on non-standard basis. The order passed by the State Commission did not reflect a correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances on record and hence, the same should be set aside.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company has drawn attention to an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "National Insurance Company vs. Meena Aggarwal" [MANU/SC/0070/2009 : (2009) 2 SCC 523], saying that the complainant was not entitled to any amount of the claim, because there had been a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, because the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. The learned counsel has drawn attention to another order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills Private Limited vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr." [MANU/SC/0814/2010 : (2010) 10 SCC 567], saying that the terms and conditions of the insurance contract should be strictly followed. In the present case, there had been violation of the said terms and conditions on the part of the complainant.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
8. A perusal of the reply filed by the OP Insurance Company before the District Forum and the orders passed by the State Commission as well as the District Forum reveals that after the alleged incident, an FIR was registered by Thakur Singh, father of the complainant before the local police, in which it was stated that three persons came to Thakur Singh, when he was standing at the taxi stand on 26.10.2011 at about 9:15 P.M. He settled a fare of 700/- with them for taking them to Ambala Cantt. However, when they were on their way, at about 10:15 P.M., the occupants of the car snatched the vehicle from the said Thakur Singh. It is clear from these facts that the vehicle was being used as a taxi although it was insured as a private vehicle. In the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "National Insurance Company vs. Meena Aggarwal" (supra), it has been observed as follows:-
"We find that the State Commission and the National Commission have not practically indicated any reason for coming to the conclusion that there was no fundamental breach of the terms of the policy. Both the State Commission and the National Commission observed that the vehicle was being driven by a person who did not have a valid driving licence. In addition to that the vehicle which was insured for personal use was used for commercial purposes."
9. Further, in the case of "Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills Private Limited vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr." (supra), it was stated as follows:-
"Thus, it needs little emphasis that in construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance, and it is not open for the court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavour of the court should always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties."
10. It is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case that there has been a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, because the use of vehicle for commercial purpose as a taxi is duly proved. Relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as quoted above, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the State Commission, and the same is upheld. This revision petition being devoid of any merit, is ordered to be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.