Case Title: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Bombay Traders
Case Number: F.A. No. 90/2017
In a recent decision, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), under the leadership of Ram Surat Maurya and Bharatkumar Pandya, found Oriental Insurance Company guilty of poor service. The issue at hand was the company’s refusal to honor an insurance policy, claiming that the policy holder had been driving under the influence of alcohol.
Here’s a brief overview of the case:
A partnership firm bought a BMW for personal use by one of its partners. The car was insured with Oriental Insurance. Unfortunately, while the car was being driven during heavy rainfall, it was severely damaged as the driver tried to avoid hitting an animal. The police, noticing the smell of alcohol on the driver, charged him under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The insurance company was informed about the accident and a claim was submitted. However, the insurance company delayed assigning a surveyor until the car was released from the police custody and taken to an authorized service center. Despite numerous requests, the firm was not provided with a copy of the survey report. Ultimately, the insurance company rejected the firm’s claim, stating that the driver had been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident.
The firm argued that this was an unjust decision, as there was no concrete proof that the driver’s alleged drunkenness had affected his ability to drive. The firm took the matter to the State Commission, which ruled in their favor. Not satisfied with the decision, the insurance company appealed to the National Commission.
Oriental Insurance claimed that the vehicle was inspected by TDM Auto Lines before the insurance policy was issued. The policy was based on a proposal form submitted by the firm under the name of M/s. Bombay Traders, but the ownership details of the vehicle were not disclosed. The insurance company also disputed the firm’s claim about how the accident occurred, and stated that their investigations revealed that the driver had been intoxicated and that the firm was not the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident.
After considering all the facts, the NCDRC ruled that the firm was indeed the registered owner and possessor of the vehicle when the accident occurred. The commission referred to the decision in the New India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Bimlesh case, stating that ownership was based on the sale letter and delivery of possession, regardless of the subsequent transfer of the registration certificate.
Regarding the allegation of the driver being under the influence of alcohol, the commission referred to the Supreme Court ruling in IFFCO Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pearl Beverage Limited. The ruling stated that driving under the influence of alcohol means impairment of driving skills due to prior alcohol consumption. The commission noted that while the insurance company had cited a police report suggesting the driver’s intoxication, there was no medical test report to prove that alcohol consumption had contributed to the accident. Therefore, the commission ruled that there was no violation of the policy condition.
In terms of compensation, the State Commission’s award was in line with the surveyor’s assessment, and the order was deemed legally sound.
To sum it up, this case underscores the importance of having substantial evidence when rejecting insurance claims. It also highlights the need for insurance companies to provide timely and efficient service, especially when dealing with accident claims.
