ORDER
S.N. Kapoor, J. (Presiding Member)
1. In this matter of insurance claim a short question about reimbursement of the cost incurred by the complainant for the loss of tyres, rims and headlights, etc. There is no dispute at all that the insured truck was purchased on 28.11.1990 and it was insured from 29.11.1990 to 28.11.1991 The vehicle was taken for erecting body over the chassis while the vehicle was standing at the workshop. Aforesaid items were stolen on 5.1.1991. FIR was lodged. Complainant/respondent lodged a claim, it was repudiated.
2. The Insurance Company pleaded that no doubt that truck was comprehensively insured but as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, liability of the Insurance Company for indemnifying the loss of tyres and headlights stood exempted and the Insurance Company relied upon indorsement No. 26 which provided that the Insurance Company would indemnity the loss of tyres and headlights in case of total loss the complainant could not claim the amount.
3. The District Forum took the view that this special exemption was not incorporated in the terms and conditions of the policies Ext. P.W./l and Ext. P/17, placed on record. The corectness of Ext. P.W./l and Ext. P/17 was not in dispute before the District Forum. Same is the issue about Ext. R/2, copy of the policy. However, the Insurance Company produced a specimen copy of the policy R/1 containing the indorsement No. 26. The District Forum did not accept it as a part and parcel of the policy.
4. In view of lack of evidence (not even affidavit) of the Insurance Company and concurrent findings, we see no reason to take any different view.
5. Leaving aside for the time being the question whether it did form part of the policy or not, let us appreciate the impact of the indorsement No. 26 which reads as under:
(i) Except in the case of total loss of vehicle the company shall not be liable under Section 1 of the policy for loss of or damage to lamps, tyres, mudguards and/or bonnet side parts, bumpers and/or paint work.
(ii) In addition to any amount for which the insured may be responsible under Para (1) above and also in the case of total loss the insured shall be responsible under Section 1 of the policy in respect of each and every event for the first Rs. 750/- or 1% IEV whichever is higher (for any loss) expenditure which may be incurred or any expenditure for which provision is made under this policy or by indorsement attached hereto or any expenditure by the company in the exercise of its discretion under condition No. 4 of this policy.”
6. It may be mentioned that the above said provision mentions only lamps, tyres, etc. It does not extend to the loss of rims and headlights. Secondly, on the basis of this exclusion clause, the Insurance Company could not have avoided its liability to pay for the loss in respect of head-lights and rims. Since the District Forum as well as the State Commission has taken a view about non-inclusion of the aforesaid term in the terms of the policy and we are not inclined to include the exclusion clause, this clause could not be read as part of the policy in absence of evidence.
7. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this revision. It is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.