UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. RAMBHAROSHI RATHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 11. 12. 2007 passed by M. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal. By the impugned order the State Commission has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-Insurance Company which they had filed against the order dated 26. 10. 2007 of the District Forum directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,70,000 in respect of the loss of the insured tractor trolley, besides a sum of Rs. 4,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,000 as cost of proceeding.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have given our due consideration to their respective submissions. The tractor bearing registration No. MP-06-J-5966 and trolley bearing registration No. MP-06-J-5976 belonging to the complainant were insured in the sum of Rs. 1,70,000. The said tractor and trolley, while on its return journey from village Dhaneta, was forcibly taken away by certain miscreants. A report was lodged with the Police and intimation was given to the Insurance Company which appointed a surveyor and investigator. The report of the surveyor and investigator disclosed that the vehicle, in question, was bing commercially used by Mr. Rajbeer Singh and on the fateful day the vehicle was being driven by certain Shiv Ratan Singh who had taken bricks loaded in the tractor trolley from Village Porsa and the bricks were delivered at Village Dhaneta for a sum of Rs. 3,900. The complainant lodged the claim with the Insurance Company which repudiated the same on the sole ground that the insured vehicle was being used for commercial purpose against for agriculture purposes which constituted violation of the terms and conditions the use for agriculture purposes. The District Forum allowed the complaint with the above stipulations and the State Commission dismissed the appeal.

(3.) MR. Rawat, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that going strictly by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the complainant is not entitled to any amount under the policy because the insured vehicle, i. e. tractor-trolley was used for commercial purpose which violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The insurance having been taken for use of the vehicle for agricultural purpose, the vehicle was expected to be used only for that purpose. Mr. Rawat has, therefore, assailed the impugned order passed by the Fora below on the ground that the latter have erroneously held the Insurance Company liable to indemnify the complainant in respect of the loss suffered by him. However, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, he has stated that the Commission may take a view if the claim of the complainant can be settled on the basis of guidelines for non-standard settlement. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant has strongly urged that the orders passed by the Fora below are justified because at the relevant time of the theft of the tractor-trolley, the trolley was empty and, therefore, it cannot be said that it was being used for commercial purpose in violation of the terms and condition of the insurance policy. We have considered this aspect of the matter. From the report of the surveyor, which we have no reason to discard, it is apparent that the tractor trolley, in question, was being ordinarily used for commercial purpose by its owner and some time for transporting the bricks from one place to another. The Police Report also makes it manifest that on the fateful night also the tractor-trolley was used for commercial purpose, viz. for transportation of bricks from one village to another, though it had delivered the bricks before the theft took place. In view of this position, there is no escape from the conclusion that there has been violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Despite the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, we are of the view that the complainant should not be denied his claim in its entirety, more particularly so when it is shown that the respondent/complainant is otherwise an agriculturist by occupation. It is, therefore, quite just and fair that the claim is in respect of the loss of tractor-trolley, particularly in aforesaid circumstances, must be settled on the basis of the guidelines of non-standard settlement. The District Forum has, in all has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,75,000 as against which, under the direction of this Commission the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs. 1,30,000 to the respondent and this is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondent. In our opinion, the amount already paid should be considered as the total claim payable by the petitioner-Insurance Company to the respondent. The order of the District Forum shall stand modified accordingly. Since this is a case of total loss on account of theft of the insured vehicle, the respondent is called upon to hand over and transfer the registration of the vehicle in favour of the Insurance Company. Needless to mention that any amount deposited by the petitioner in this Commission or before the State Commission as a pre-requisite for filing the appeals shall be refunded to the Insurance Company. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. Revision Petition disposed of.