NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI Revision Petition No.

1282 of 2000 (From the order dated 24.4.00 in Appeal No. 1125/98 of the State Commission, Madhya Pradesh) Decided On: 28.02.2002 Appellants: Balendra Gautam Vs. Respondent: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Hon'ble Judges: D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President), Rajyalakshmi Rao and B.K. Taimni, Members Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Panchamlal Tamrakar, Adv. Subject: Consumer Disposition: Petition dismissed ORDER B.K. Taimni, Member 1. This Revision Petition has bene filed by the Petitioner against the order of the State Commission partly allowing the appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner owned a truck which was covered by insurance with the Respondents. This truck collided with a parked tractor-trolley on 14.2.97 but the truck sped on. It appears that the collision resulted damages to oil pressure pipe, resulting in leakage of engine oil, leading to seizure of the engine. The Respondent Company offered Rs. 18,050/less Rs. 850/- on account of salvage which was not accepted by the Petitioner. On the Petitioner filing the complaint before the District Forum, complaint was allowed to the extent of Rs. 16,050/-; on an appeal being filed by the Petitioner, the State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum with the modification that the awarded amount would carry interest @ 12% from 5.8.97 till the date of payment. Petitioner has come up in revision before us against this order. 3. It is argued by the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that his vehicle was insured and met with an accident resulting in its loss - hence it is covered by the policy. Consequential loss or damage is yet to be defined. Therefore, the plea taken by the Respondent Company is not supported by facts of this case or by law on the subject, hence the order passed by both the lower forums need to be set aside. 4. Only point involved in whether the truck was lost due to an accident? If not, then can it be deemed to be covered by the terms of the policy? Facts of the case lead us to see that the truck

collided with a trolly, yet the driver kept driving the truck, allegedly on the apprehension of this being beaten by the villages. He did not realise that oil pressure pipe was damaged-draining out the oil leading to engine's seizure. The story of apprehension of his being beaten has not been believed as the time of collusion was mid-night and the place of incident was far of from the village. Obviously there was no damage to the truck on account of accident directly, his driving it for a certain distance itself is a proof of the fact. Had the Truck Driver stopped the vehicle, than at least the engine would not have "seized". Consequential loss could be said to be the loss occasioned, in this case by the recklessness on the part of driver, to keep driving after the collision resulting in an avoidable mishap to the vehicle. Seizure of the engine is not the direct result of the accident but only an avoidable off short of the collision. This is not covered by the terms of the policy. Both the lower forums have examined this point at length and we find no merit in the arguments advanced before us by the Petitioner. We find no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the both the lower forums. The order of the State Commission is upheld.

Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. InterScan_SafeStamp.txt