MANU/RB/0037/1993

Equivalent Citation: 1993()C .P.C .432, II(1993)C PJ1144(Punj.)

PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHANDIGARH
Complaint No. 7 of 1992
Decided On: 15.04.1993
Appellants: Amrik Singh
Vs.
Respondent: United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.S. Dewan, J. (President), Ram Lal Gupta, Member and Gurkanwal Kaur, Member
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Malkiat Singh, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant: Pardeep Bedi, Advocate
ORDER
S.S. Dewan, J. (President)
1 . The Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 'Act') against the opposite party on February 21,
1992 before the State Commission. The issue herein lies in a narrow compass and the
relevant facts are not in serious dispute. The complainant admittedly had insured his
Mini Truck bearing registration No. PAT-9839, with the United India Insurance
Company Ltd., Mohali (Punjab), under the comprehensive policy No.
11202/31/3908/90 (Annexure 'B') for the period commencing from 15.6.990 and
valid upto 14.6.1991. On 2.11.1990 that is to say during the substance of the policy,
the truck met with an accident and as a result thereof, the same became totally
useless. It transpires that the Insurance Company was informed of the accident by
the complainant and the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company assessed the
loss to the tune of Rs. 74,752.52 paise. The case of the Complainant was that on the
asking of the Insurance Company, he got his truck repaired and spent about Rs.
1,35,103/- to make it roadworthy. The Insurance Company rejected his claim on
24.11.1991 informing him that his claim stood repudiated as the limitation as to use
the vehicle had been breached by him. Having failed to receive any relief on making
representations the present complaint was preferred before this Commission on 21.2-
1992, claiming Rs. 1,20,000/- as compensation in addition to the amount of Rs.
1,35,103/- spent by him for the repair of his truck and other expenses alongwith
interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of accident till payment.
2. On notice being issued, the opposite party raised a preliminary objection that the
complaint was not maintainable under the Act as the complainant had contravened
the terms and conditions of the policy. On merits, the allegations of the complainant
were controverted and what was highlighted was the fact that at the time of the
alleged accident, 30/35 passengers were travelling in the ill-fated truck and due to
the accident, 8 persons had died. It was averred that the truck was a goods carrying
vehicle and goods carrying vehicle policy was is sued. The limitations as to use the

26-10-2020 (Page 1 of 3) www.manupatra.com Jamia Millia Islamia

vehicle clearly stated that the use for carrying passengers in the vehicle except
employees (other than the driver) not exceeding six in number coming under the
purview of W.C. Act, 1923. Finally, it was pleaded that as the vehicle was used
against the terms of the policy, therefore, the claim was repudiated.
3. In support of his case, the complainant rested himself content with the documents
Annexure A to H annexed to the complaint. The learned Counsel for the complainant
had stated at the Bar that these documents may be treated as evidence to be adduced
on behalf of the complainant. The Insurance Company put on record the documents
Annexures R-1 & R-2 in support of its case. On the request of the learned Counsel for
the parties, their evidence was closed by this Commission.
4. The question that arises for determination is as to whether the State Commission
constituted under the Act, has got the jurisdiction to decide the present complaint?
5. At the very outset, we must necessarily notice the pointed and vehement stand of
Mr. Pardeep Bedi, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that the complainant
by his suspicious conduct, has rendered himself ineligible for relief within the
consumer jurisdiction. It was his case that there was a deliberate attempt on the part
of the complainant to suppress the material fact in the claim filed by him before the
Insurance Company and also before this Commission. In particular, it was pointed
out that during the investigation, it was found out by the Insurance Company through
their Investigator that on the fateful day 30/35 persons were travelling in the Mini
Truck of the complainant and out of those, 8 persons had died at the alleged time of
occurrence. The learned Counsel has referred us to the clause in policy pertaining to
limitations as to use, which reads thus :
"Limitation as to use for carrying passengers in the vehicle except employees
(other than driver) not exceeding six in number, coming under the purview
of W.C. Act, 1923."
This would show that carrying of employees (other than driver) not exceeding six in
number, is permitted as per conditions contained therein. At the alleged time of
occurrence, the complainant's Mini Truck was carrying about 30/35 persons.
According to Mr. Pardeep Bedi, the complainant had acted in violation of the
conditions of the policy by carrying so many persons in his vehicle.
6. We are inclined to hold that there is a considerable merit in the aforesaid stance of
the learned Counsel for the opposite party. The rule of our jurisprudence has long
been that those seeking relief in equitable or extra-ordinary jurisdiction (other than
ordinary and the formal one at law) must do so with the utmost can dour and without
any covert or overt suppression of facts or making of any misleading averments. That
principle is epitomised in the dictum that the petitioner even on writ side must come
into portals of such jurisdictions with clean hands. Though this aspect is patent on
principle yet the authority on the point is not lacking either; In Asiatic Engineering
Co. v. Achhru Ram, 1951 All 746 Chief Justice Malik speaking for the Full Bench has
observed as follows :
"A person obtaining an ex-parte order or a rule nisi by means of a petition
for exercise of the extraordinary powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution
must come with clean hands, must not suppress any relevant facts from the
Court, must refrain from making misleading statements and from giving
incorrect information to the Court. Courts, for their own protection should
insist that persons invoking these extraordinary powers should not attempt,

26-10-2020 (Page 2 of 3) www.manupatra.com Jamia Millia Islamia

 in any manner, to misuse this valuable right by obtaining ex-parte order by
suppression, misrepresentation or misstatement of facts."
In the light of the above both on principle and precedent, it has necessarily to be
held that a consumer knocking at the door of the redressal agencies under the Act for
relief in a consumer dispute must do so with clean hands. The complainant had
deliberately suppressed tire material fact of carrying about 30/35 passengers in the
Mini Truck and out of them 8 persons having died at the alleged time of occurrence.
We have, therefore, to consider, whether this suppression of the material fact by the
complainant disentitles him to relief in this jurisdiction and whether there was a
breach of conditions of the policy, which is so fundamental in its nature, which gives
complete discharge to the liability of the Insurance Company.
7. Mr. Malkiat Singh, learned Counsel for the complainant has contended that even if
the Mini Truck of the complainant was carrying about 30/35 passengers that does not
amount to breach of contract discharging the total liability of the Insurance Company.
In support of this contention, he has relied upon the decisions in Dr. Parul Uresh
Dalal v. Indian Dental Traders II (1992) CPJ 972, Badri Narain & Others v. Chhotu
Ram & Others, 1986 (II) Accidents Claims Journal 1062, New India Insurance
Company Limited and Others v. Kothapalli Venkatesware Rao 1986 (I) Accidents
Claims Journal, 294, Oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Yusuf Musa Chandki and
Others 1986 (I) Accidents Claims Journal. We are unable to find any modicum of
merit in this contention.
8 . We have gone through the decisions afore-mentioned and we find that these are
distinguishable because of the ratio thereof is not at all applicable to the facts and
Circumstances of this case. In the aforesaid cases, about 4/5 passengers were carried
in the truck and it was held that it was merely an irregularity, which was not
fundamental in nature so as to put an end to a contract between the insured and
insurer. But in the present case, the complainant's driver used the Mini Truck as a
Mini Bus as he was carrying about 30/35 passengers and therefore, there was clear
breach of limitation to use the vehicle, which will discharge the total liability of the
Insurance Company as those passengers had contributed increase of risk and they
were connected with the cause of accident. The complainant has also withheld the
material information from the Insurance Company and also from this Commission and
he has thus, disentitled himself to relief in this jurisdiction and he must be relegated
to the ordinary remedy at law, if so adviced.
9. The case of the opposite party is that the Insurance Company had applied its mind
fully while fepudiating the claim of the complainant. There is substance in this
submission. In the present case, the rejection by the Insurance Company of the claim
put forward by the complainant after obtaining and considering the Surveyor's report
cannot be said to constitute a deficiency in service so as to give rise to a cause of
action for a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. The present case is directly
governed by the dictum laid-down by the National Commission in M/s. Janta Machine
Tools v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 1991 (2) CPR 18. For the aforesaid
reasons, we regret our inability to finally adjudicate the merit of this case. We are
firmly of the view that the issues involved herein cannot be resolved except in
ordinary process of the Civil Law. Consequently the complaint is dismissed with no
order as to costs.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

26-10-2020 (Page 3 of 3) www.manupatra.com Jamia Millia Islamia