NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MUNNI LAL YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been brought against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The respondent had purchased a jeep and such purchase was financed by one M/s. Century Finance Corporation. The jeep was got insured from National Insurance Co. Ltd., the petitioner in the petition. The insurance cover was from 6.7.1993 till 5.7.1994. On 20th January, 1994 at about 7.00 p.m. the jeep met with an accident in which it suffered serious damages. It is also alleged that driver Shri Shambhu Nath was driving the said vehicle at the time of accident. The said Mr. Shambhu Nath had valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. An FIR of this accident was duly lodged on 21.4.1994. The Insurance Company appointed the Surveyor who visited the site, took photographs and after completing all the formalities, assured the complainant that he would be paid damages of the jeep. The Insurance Company demanded certain documents which were duly supplied. The Surveyor had assessed the damages to the vehicle at Rs. 72,000/- and send this report. The respondent incurred an expenses of Rs. 75,000/- in getting the vehicle repaired. When the payment was not forthcoming from the Insurance Company, the respondent filed the complaint and in their written version before the District Forum, the Insurance Company took the plea that they have already repudiated the claim. In their written version they have said that after the Surveyor's report an Investigator was also appointed who reported that the vehicle at the material time was being driven by Mr. Bhayya Lal, who was not having the valid driving licence. The Insurance Company neither produce the Investigator nor summoned that alleged Bhayya Lal. The District Forum awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards damages alongwith interest @ 12% thereof. On other hand, the complainant/respondent produced evidence wherein he has stated on oath that Mr. Shambhu Nath was the driver. The other question is that the vehicle was being used as a public vehicle while it was insured as a private vehicle. Therefore, no award should have been made because the lower rate of premium was charged. The State Commission has rightly relied upon the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Nagaraju v. M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., II (1996) CPJ 18 (SC). In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved the observations in the case of M/s. Skandia which are read as under :

(2.) Apart from that, the State Commission was fully conscious of the guidelines for settling the claim where any of the terms of policy have not been adhered to. The said guideline provides for settlement of such claims as non-standard and the percentages are also duly indicated in Clause 10 of the Procedural Manual of Motor Claims (own damage and third party). After the judgment had been reserved, Counsel filed a written note of arguments virtually reiterating the grounds of revision. The said note has not brought out any ground which makes the guidelines inapplicable.

(3.) We reproduce the relevant passage from the said Procedural Manual of Motor Claims which read as under : (10) Non-Standard Claims : Following types of claims shall be considered as non-standard and shall be settled as indicated below after recording the reason : SI. No. Description Percentage of settlement Under declaration of licensed carrying capacity Deduct 3 years' difference in premium from the amount of claim of deduct 25% of claim amount, whichever is higher. Overloading of vehicles beyond licensed carrying capacity. Pay claims not exceeding 75% of admissible claim. Any other breach of warranty/condition of policy including limitation as to use. Pay upto 75% of admissible claim. (Emphasis supplied) The settlement of the claim has been ordered by the District Forum at less than 75%. For that reason, the State Commission has rightly declined the relief sought by the Insurance Company and dismissed its appeal. We find no merit in this revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.