KESARBEN Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of decision of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, accepting the appeal of the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and reversing the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City. Some of the salient facts of the case are that the deceased husband of the complainant was the owner of the jeep car bearing Registration No. G.U.F. 82 which was insured with the respondent before us. The said car was driven either by the respondent or the driver, named Fataji Bhikhaji Thakore (hereinafter referred to as the driver). The driver was engaged by the deceased to drive this vehicle and the driver left Ahmedabad on September 19, 1990, but did not return the car. The deceased after waiting for the driver to return for a few days lodged a complaint with the Naranpura Police Station. Later on, a dead body was found near village Ghamasana, which was identified to be dead body of the driver of the said car. It appears that someone had murdered the driver and stolen the car. The claim in the circumstances, was brought against the respondent for the sum insured. The relevant documents were also produced. Because, the insured did not settle the claim and in the meantime the deceased suffered a heart-attack and died on August 15, 1991, as the claim was not being settled by the respondent the complaint was filed before the District Forum at Ahmedabad, seeking recovery of the total compensation of Rs. 1.35 lakhs. The only plea taken by the insurer before the District Forum and the State Commission was that car was not supposed to be used for hire or reward. It may be noted that evidence was not produced before the District Forum in the manner it is required under law. No one appeared before the District Forum from the appellant. The said brother of the deceased was also not examined. In this case, The report (of the Claims Minimisation Bureau) has also remained unproved since the Investigator has not been produced and there is no way in which the veracity of his report could be tested or decided. But it would not be correct to assume that there could have been some passengers being carried in the said jeep at the time of the accident as pleaded on behalf of the Insurance Company. There is nothing on record to show that on the fateful day the driver carried any passengers in that car. Even the amount which was given to him for diesel appears to have been already been accounted for by the driver. Even if it is assumed that the brother of the deceased had sometime been plying his brother's vehicle on certain occasions, no evidence has been produced to establish that this was being done on regular basis with the full knowledge and connivance of the deceased and if such were the facts then the State Commission should have looked into the guidelines for settlement of the non-standard claims which, inter alia, provided : GUIDELINES FOR SETTLEMENT OF NON-STANDARD CLAIMS

(2.) In this case reliance has been placed only on the report which has remained unproved and no affidavit of the person who has investigated the case on behalf of the Insurance Company has been produced. In such circumstances, it cannot be accepted that the facts alleged by the insurer are proved on record. A reference in this behalf is made to a decision of this Commission in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dashrathlal Jethabai Patel, II (1996) CPJ 77 (NC).

(3.) The types of claims which can be settled as non-standard under the guidelines are set out hereunder :