UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. M. PREMENDER REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.68/08 on the file of District Forum, Adilabad, the opp.party preferred this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is a dealer of Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited having retail outlet at Dasnapur, Adilabad under the name & style of Tirumala Filling Station and he was also owner of lorry tanker and has bulk POL transportation contract with the said company. On 24.3.2006 at about 2.30 p.m. complainants lorry bearing no.AP-01/V-0225 carrying speed petrol & diesel while proceeding towards Adilabad from Hyderabad dashed a stationed lorry in front of R.R.C.Venture on N.H.No.7 as a result of which the lorry tankers first compartment body was cracked and speed petrol in it leaked out and the vehicle was also damaged. On a complaint given by one Pampiri Nagesh, police of Toopran registered a case against the driver of lorry tanker of complainant and issued F.I.R. No.71/06 dt.24.3.2006. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party under two policies, one package policy bearing no.051900/31/05/00984 covering damage valid from 19.7.2005 to 18.7.2006 and another policy bearing no.051900/46/05/00030 covering product & risk under carrier legal policy valid from 19.7.2005 to 18.7.2006. Immediately after the accident the complainant informed to the opp.party and a surveyor appointed by the opp.party visited the accident spot and assessed the loss of product as 2220 liters of speed petrol valuing at Rs.1,08,913/- and vehicle damages at about Rs.1,36,000/- and the complainant submitted a claim application on 14.3.2007 for payment of loss of product and also for damages of the vehicle and the opp.party vide letter dt.15.5.2007 rejected the claim stating that the damage sustained to the product belonging to the owner insured is not covered under the policy and by carrying unauthorised passengers policy conditions were breached. The complainant submits as he was having contract of carriage for bulk POL transportation with Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited, he cannot be considered as owner of the goods until it reached the destination i.e. the retail outlet of the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant approached the District Forum to direct the opp.party to pay an amount of Rs.2,44,913/- and also interest at 12% p.a. and also to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

(3.) The opposite party filed counter denying that their surveyor assessed the leakage as 2220 liters of speed petrol having value of Rs.1,08,913/-. Opp.party submits that the complainant failed to lodge the claim within 14 days of accident and as such violated condition no.3 of policy . Opp.party further submits that the complainant was transporting his own speed petrol in the tanker from Hyderabad to Adilabad and the risk of goods of insured is not covered by the policy and hence they have repudiated the claim of the complainant. The tanker used by the complainant was not a goods carrier vehicle but on the date of accident it was carrying passengers and hence the said tanker was under the head of general exception of the policy and that of permit, as such the claim of the complainant is not maintainable and hence they have repudiated the claim of the complainant. The opposite party submits that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and seeks for dismissal of the complaint.