P. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.2/2006 on the file of District Forum, Kadapa, the complainant preferred this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of mini lorry no. AP04-U-4841 and he got insured it with the opposite party by paying premium of Rs.10,853/- coverage period being from 4.10.2002 to 3.10.2003. On 5.12.2002 while Chamanthi flower baskets belonging to different farmers were being transported from Kadapa to Chennai and the lorry was returning on 6.12.2002 along with said ryots who transported the Chamanthi flowers and when the said vehicle reached Rajampet Main Road the lorry hit a tree and two persons sitting inside the cabin died and others sitting in the lorry received injuries. The case was registered as Crime no.70/2002 against the driver of the said mini lorry and the accident was intimated to the opposite party insurance company who appointed insurance surveyor and he inspected the damaged vehicle and submitted his report. The complainant got the damaged vehicle shifted to M/s.Standard Automotives Eicher, Kadapa and also paid towing charges of Rs.1500/-. An estimate was given by the authorized dealer for Eicher and the complainant spent Rs.2 lakhs and got his vehicle repaired and it took three months time for getting the vehicle repaired. the complainant submits that he earns not less than Rs.10,000/- per month after deducting expenses and loan instalment. The complainant lost Rs.30,000/- income in three months. The opposite party vide letter dt.26.2.2004 repudiated the claim on the ground that 11 passengers excluding the driver and the cleaner were traveling in the vehicle which is violative of the terms and conditions. The complainant replied stating that 6 tons of load mentioned in the claim form is the carrying capacity of the vehicle and the persons in the said lorry who died are the owners of Chamanti flowers and it is they who engaged the lorry and they are all owners of the goods as shown in the FIR. But there was no response from the opposite party. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.2,50,000/- towards the claim amount together with interest, compensation and costs.

(3.) Opposite party filed counter admitting that the mini lorry which is the goods carrier vehicle was insured by them and that as per the R.C. of the vehicle in column no.19 the seating capacity is 3 in all and as such carrying of passengers as owner of goods does not arise. Three passengers who are permitted to travel in the vehicles cabin alone are driver, cleaner and one non-fare passenger. On perusal of the charge sheet led by the police after investigation it clearly reveals that 11 persons were traveling at the time of the accident excluding the driver, cleaner which is violation of terms and conditions of the policy and hence the repudiation is justified.