Y.VIJAYA BHASKER REDDY Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful complainant in C. C. 103/2006 before the District Forum, Kadapa preferred this appeal questioning the legality and propriety of the order in dismissing the insurance claim covered by the policy issued in respect of passenger bus bearing No. AP 04 T: 9393 which met with an accident on 10.02.2006.

(2.) The facts of the case disclose that the complainant is the owner of the bus bearing No. AP 04T 9393 and the said vehicle was insured with R-1 under Comprehensive Insurance Policy bearing No. 050904/31/4/0100005122 which was valid from 31.3.2005 to 30.03.2006. The said bus was also hired to APSRTC under an agreement dated 01.10.2005. While so, the said bus met with an accident causing extensive damage to the bus and also some passengers sustained injuries. A case was registered as Cr. No. 01/2006 by the concerned police. On intimation, the insurance company appointed a surveyor who inspected it and the surveyor expressed its total loss for which consent was taken from the complainant for payment of a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs to be paid in total. The Insurance claim is to be settled within 15 days but the opposite party failed to settle the claim which amounts to negligence and deficiency in service. The complainant sustained loss of Rs.43,000/-. Hence sought for a direction for payment of Rs. 4 lakhs towards insurance amount, Rs.50,000/- towards damages, an additional compensation of Rs.45,000/- with costs.

(3.) Resisting the claim, the second opposite party filed a counter which was adopted by R-1 stating that the policy was taken under Passengers Carrying Commercial Vehicle Policy. The complainant had to prove that the accident had taken place by producing necessary documents. The complainant has entered in to an agreement with the APSRTC, Kadapa for hiring of the bus from 01.10.2005 subsequent to the issuance of the policy. It was not brought to the notice of the opposite party about the hiring of the bus. The complainant had to pay additional premium of 1.05% on the insured vehicle as per the Indian Motor Tariff No. 44 which directs payment of additional premium of 1.05% on the insured value so as to indemnify the loss. As the complainant failed to pay the additional premium, the opposite parties are not liable to pay the amount and that the vehicle was under the custody and control of the third party at the time of the accident. The repudiation was done as per the rules. So it cannot be said that there was any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.