Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral)
1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 26.10.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by respondent-Shanti Negi, has been allowed and the appellant has been ordered to pay a sum of Rs.1,45,875/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum by way of insurance money, Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,500/- as litigation expenses.
2. Appellant owned a Mahindra Pickup, which was registered as a transport vehicle for carriage of goods. The same was insured with the respondent for the period from 19.10.2008 to 18.10.2009. On 17.12.2008, vehicle met with an accident and was damaged. Intimation of accident was given to the respondent, who deputed a Surveyor for assessing the loss. Loss was assessed at Rs.2,19,500/-. Wreck value was assessed at Rs.50,000/-.
3. Appellant, however, repudiated the claim on the ground that at the time, when accident took place, there were two gratuitous passengers, on board the vehicle. Therefore, a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was filed by respondent, seeking a direction to the appellant to pay insurance money and also to pay compensation for alleged wrongful repudiation of claim.
4. Appellant contested the complaint and pleaded that there were two gratuitous passengers, on board the vehicle, when it met with an accident.
5. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that because of the presence of two passengers, on board the vehicle, at the time, when accident took place, the claim ought not to have been rejected in toto and that 75% of the admissible claim, should have been paid, on non-standard basis and consequently the complaint has been allowed and a direction given to the appellant to pay money, equivalent to 75% of the loss assessed by the Surveyor, with compensation and costs, as aforesaid. Appellant is aggrieved by this order and has preferred the present appeal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
7. Registration certificate of the vehicle is on record as Annexure-A. As per registration certificate, seating capacity of the vehicle is 2+1. As per insurance agreement also, three passengers can be carried in the vehicle, as is made out from cover note, Annexure-B, as also the policy, Annexure OP-1. Admittedly, there were three persons, including the driver, on board the vehicle, when the accident took place. One of two persons, other than the driver, was the husband of the owner of vehicle and the second person was a labourer, engaged by the insured for loading potato crop, as the vehicle was being taken to fields to fetch potato crop.
8. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that condition with regard to limitation as to use, which is reproduced below, had been violated, by carrying the husband of respondent and a labourer:-
œLimitation as to use
The Policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or such a carriage falling under Sub-section 3 of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
1. Use only for carriage of goods within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Policy does not cover; (1) Use for organized racing, pace-making, reliability trial or speed testing; (2) Use whilst drawing a trailer except the towing (other than for reward) of any one disabled mechanically propelled vehicle; (3) Use for carrying passengers in the vehicles; except employees (other than the driver) not exceeding the number permitted in the registration document and coming under the purview of Workmens Compensation Act, 1923.?
9. We are unable to accept the submission for a number of reasons. First, as per investigation, got carried out by the appellant itself, three persons, on board the vehicle, were; a driver, named Chhering Tenzin; husband of the respondent, named Suresh Kumar; and a labourer, named Virender, engaged to load potato crop. Report of investigator is Annexure OP-5 and this fact finds mention in the introduction part itself. Husband of the respondent cannot be said to be an unauthorized, or gratuitous passenger, as he was supposed to be the owner of potato crop, which was to be loaded. Virender was a labourer and, hence, an employee, who, as per above reproduced condition, limitation as to use, could have been carried in the vehicle. In any case, cover note of the policy, Annexure-B, speaks of carrying 1+1+1 passengers, which implies that any three persons could have been carried in the vehicle.
10. As a matter of fact, in view of what we have stated, hereinabove, claim in its entirety, ought to have been ordered to be paid by the appellant. However, there being no appeal on behalf of the respondent/complainant, we cannot, on our own, modify the order, in favour of the respondent. Appeal is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.5,000/-.
11. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.