NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
REVISION PETITION NO. 4391 OF 2012
(From the Order dated 29.06.2012 in Appeal No. 664/2011 of
Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula)
Manoj Banerjee Petitioner
S/o Sh. Moti Lal Banerjee
R/o H.N.482, Professor Colony
Ambey Gas Godown Road
Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri
District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent
Opp. Madhu Hotel, Jagadhri Road
Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri
District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana
(Through its authorized signatory
Chief Regional Manager)
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Regional Office, LIC Building
2nd Floor, Jagadhri Road
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Garg, Advocate
Pronounced on : 21st January, 2013
PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER
There is a delay of 40 days in filing this revision petition. For the reasons stated by the petitioner in his condonation application, the delay stands condoned.
2. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 29.6.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (‘State Commission’ for short) by which the State Commission had reversed and set aside the order dated 11.4.2011 passed by the District Forum, Yamuna Nagar in complaint No.73 of 2010 and allowed the appeal of the opposite party/respondent Insurance Co. while nonsuiting the claim of the petitioner.
3. The brief facts of this case as emerging from the record are that the truck bearing Regn. No.HR-58-A-9306 of the complainant was insured with the OP Insurance Co. for the period from 10.10.2008 to 9.10.2009. On 23.3.2009, the truck met with an accident at Shillong in Meghalya State and was burnt. D.D.R. No. 332 dated 23.3.2009 was registered at the police stationSohryngkham. Intimation was also given to the OP Insurance Co. which appointed a surveyor who inspected the vehicle and submitted his report. The claim of the complainant submitted to the Insurance Co. was, however, repudiated by the OP Co. on the ground that the vehicle was driven in the area of Meghalya without any valid route permit because the complainant had obtained the route permit only for the State of Haryana, Punjab, U.P and Uttrakhand. It was further stated that the vehicle was loaded with Wax which is a hazardous item and the driver of the vehicle was not carrying any valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle loaded with hazardous items. Challenging the repudiation of his claim, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Yamuna Nagar.
4. On being noticed, OP appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement wherein it justified the repudiation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint with the following observations:-
“…… As per report of the Surveyor Annexure R-11 at para No. 4 page No. 2 it is clearly mentioned that the insurer was having valid route permit for Haryana, U.P, Bihar, Assam, Meghalaya and Tripura, so first ground for repudiating the claim by respondent is not sustainable…………”
Secondly Learned counsel for the respondent took the plea that the vehicle of the complainant as carrying wax and to carry chemical in any vehicle a person to obtain a permit particularly for hazardous goods. The respondent failed to prove wax is a hazardous goods. Neither the surveyor has pointed out regarding wax fall under the definition of Hazardous nor he touch this point in his report. So argument of the respondent on this ground is not tenable………”
5. In view of the aforesaid observations, the District Forum granted the following reliefs to the complainant:-
“………. Admittedly the vehicle was insured with the respondent for the relevant time for Rs.8,40,000/-. According to the report of Surveyor there is a total loss of the vehicle. The scrap of the truck have also been stolen. The accident took place within 6 months of obtaining the insurance cover and we allow depreciation at the rate of 5% on the vehicle and direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 7,98,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 14.07.2009 i.e. after two months from the receipt of Surveyor report till actual payment and the respondent is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceedings. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which penal action under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act will be initiated.”
6. Aggrieved by the above order of the District Forum, the OP Insurance Co. went in appeal before the State Commission which allowed the same and set aside the order of the District Forum. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant has now filed the present revision petition against the order of the State Commission.
7. It is seen from the impugned order that the State Commission has non suited the claim of the petitioner keeping in view the admission on the part of the petitioner that the truck had entered into the area of Meghalya without any valid route permit. It is observed that the report received from the Regional Transport Authority, Yamuna Nagar also indicated that the complainant had obtained the route permit only for Haryana, Punjab, U.P. and Uttrakhand. Considering these admitted facts, the State Commission has accepted the appeal of the OP Insurance Co. applying the ratio laid down by the National Commission in the judgement dated 9.11.2010 rendered in R.P. No 2976 of 2006 (United India Insurance Co. ltd. Vs. Trilok Kaushik). We agree with the view taken by the State Commission in its impugned order which is in line with the view taken by the National Commission. It is well-established in the light of various judgements of the Apex Court that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy have to be construed strictly and if there is any violation of the terms, the party cannot claim any relief. Mr. Abhishek Garg, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried albeit unsuccessfully persuaded us to accept the claim of the petitioner on non-standard basis but in view of the settled position of law, we cannot accept this request. The facts and circumstances of the two cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the cases of G. Kothainachiar Vs. Branch Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. [R.P. No.1503 of 2004] decided on 29.10.2007 by the National Commission and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Banto Devi & Ors. [2007 (1) T.A.C. 1000 (P&H) decided by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana were different and hence the same cannot be applied to the present case. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present revision petition which would justify our interference with the impugned order. The revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed at the threshold with no order as to costs.
(K.S. CHAUDHARI, J.)