SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has set aside an order of the District Consumer Commission, Jammu, and directed United India Insurance Company to pay Rs 80,414 to Kartar Motors after holding that the insurer had failed to conclusively prove the grounds on which it repudiated the accident claim.
The order was passed on July 17, 2026 by a bench comprising President (Officiating) Nighat Sultana and Member Maheep Gupta in an appeal filed by Kartar Motors against the District Commission’s March 26, 2015 order dismissing its consumer complaint. The appellant was represented by advocate Yashodhan Thakur, while advocate Vishnu Gupta appeared for United India Insurance Company.
The dispute arose after the appellant’s insured truck met with an accident during the validity of the insurance policy. Although the insurer’s surveyor assessed the loss at Rs 33,318, the claim was repudiated on April 4, 2008 on two grounds: that the truck, which had a permit to operate only in Jammu and Kashmir, was plying in Punjab, and that it was allegedly carrying LPG cylinders while being driven by a person not authorised to transport hazardous goods.
Before the Commission, Kartar Motors contended that the truck was carrying empty LPG cylinders at the time of the accident and therefore no special endorsement on the driver’s licence was required. The insurance company maintained that the cylinders were filled, making such an endorsement mandatory.
Examining the goods receipt relied upon by the insurer, the Commission found that it did not conclusively establish whether the accident occurred during the truck’s onward journey carrying filled cylinders or while it was returning with empty cylinders.
The Commission observed: “It is a settled legal principle that the onus of proving the ground of rejection of claim lies squarely with the Insurance Company who is to prove the factum beyond any reasonable doubt.”
It further held: “We, therefore, feel that the Ld. District Commission, in absence of any conclusive proof, should have extended the benefit of doubt to the Complainant.”
Giving the appellant the benefit of doubt, the Commission assumed that the vehicle had met with the accident during its return journey while carrying empty cylinders, and therefore held that no additional hazardous goods endorsement was required on the driver’s licence.
On the issue of the vehicle operating outside its route permit, the Commission acknowledged that the truck was indeed plying in Punjab despite being authorised only for Jammu and Kashmir. However, it held that the insurer had not shown that this breach had any direct nexus with the accident.
The Commission observed that the insurance company had relied only on a technical breach of the permit conditions and noted: “It is not a case of the Insurance Company that the breach was a substantial one or having a direct nexus with the cause of accident.”
Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Amlendu Sahoo v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., the Commission directed that the claim be settled on a non-standard basis, awarding 75 per cent of the assessed amount after permissible deductions and additions, including towing charges. It also awarded compensation for the prolonged delay in settlement and litigation expenses.
Accordingly, the Commission directed United India Insurance Company to pay a total of Rs 80,414, comprising Rs 26,489 as non-standard claim settlement, Rs 33,925 as compensation for delay calculated at 7 per cent from April 4, 2008 to July 17, 2026, and Rs 20,000 towards litigation expenses. The amount is to be paid within 30 days, failing which it will carry interest at 7 per cent per annum from July 18, 2026 until payment. The appeal was allowed and the District Commission’s order was set aside
