Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member and Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
JAGDISH RANA - Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 178 of 2011 from Order dated 20.9.2010 in Appeal No. 656 of 2006 of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula
Decided on : 15-02-2013
Insurance - Claim on Non-Standard Basis - Violations of Insurance Policy - [K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member] - [Insurance] - [2010) 2 CPJ 9 (SC), (2006) 2 CPJ 144 (NC), (2006) 2 CPJ 83 (NC), R.P. No. 3857 of 2011] - The court discussed violations of the insurance policy including seating capacity, use of LP Gas Kit, and influence of liquor. It referenced previous cases to establish that even with policy violations, the claim can be settled on a non-standard basis. The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to receive Rs. 20,000 from the respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's car was insured, but the claim was repudiated by the insurance company citing violations of the insurance policy, including seating capacity, use of LP Gas Kit, and influence of liquor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the violations of the insurance policy did not justify the total repudiation of the claim and held that the petitioner was entitled to receive Rs. 20,000 from the respondent.
Issues: Violation of insurance policy, entitlement to claim on non-standard basis
Ratio Decidendi: Even with violations of the insurance policy, the claim can be settled on a non-standard basis.
Final Decision: The revision petition filed by the petitioner was partly allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, holding that the petitioner is entitled to receive Rs. 20,000 along with interest and litigation expenses from the respondent.
ORDER
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 20.9.2010 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, the State Commission ) in Appeal No. 656 of 2006, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jagdish Rana, by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside and complaint was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner got insured his Maruti Car No. DL-3CL-1392 from the OP/respondent for a sum of Rs. 77,500 for a period of one year commencing from 30.9.2002 to 29.9.2003. On 16.2.2003, car met with an accident and FIR was lodged and intimation was also given to the OP. Complainant submitted claim and OP also appointed Surveyor but claim was repudiated on the ground that driver of the vehicle was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident and six persons were travelling in the car against the capacity of four persons and car was fitted with LPG cylinder whereas, the car was to be driven by petrol. Complainant alleging deficiency on the part of OP filed complaint before the District Forum. OP resisted claim on the aforesaid grounds. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs. 62,000 along with 9% p.a. interest and Rs. 3,000 as litigation expenses. Appeal filed by the OP was allowed by learned Station Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if there was some violation of the conditions of insurance policy, petitioner was entitled to claim on non-standard basis and learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint; hence, petition be accepted and at least claim on non-standard basis be allowed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by the learned State Commission is in accordance with law, as there were many violations of the insurance policy; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. Learned State Commission observed following violations as per Surveyor's report, which is re-produced as under:
"Further Ex.OP-15 i.e. the preliminary motor survey report dated 27.2.2003 submitted by Grover Associates has supported the version of the appellant-opposite party justifying the repudiation of the claim of the complainant. The relevant portion of which is reproduced as under
"1 ....
2 ....
3 ....
4 ....
5 ....
6 ....
7. Nature and Cause of Accident
"As is known to all in Jind and as per press reports (cuttings enclosed) the passengers in this car had gone in a marriage party in village Ghimana and had gone to Bibipur and consumed alcohol and were waiving the bottles in their hands and the car was in speed which rammed into a truck straight in front, as such it got badly damaged".
8. ...
9 ....
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
Violations observed/evident in this accident
1. Seating capacity
As against the seating capacity of 3+1 there were 6 passengers.
2. Influence of Liquor
Apparently all the occupants including driver were under the influence of liquors and waiving bottles and enjoying and that resulted into extraoridinary speed of the car and smashing straight in right front of the said truck.
3. L.P. Gas Aspect
The car is fitted with the LP Gas Kit and in the Dicky there are Gas Cylinder Belts and all these items have been depicted in the photos snapped by us.
4. Hire and Reward
Aspect is also attracted and presumably the car was hired for the marriage party as the driver and occupants belong to two villagers and three persons in this car are reported to be having profession of drivers.
Sd/-
For Grover Associates,
Jind".
6. Perusal of FIR reveals that six persons were travelling in the car at the time of accident whereas, capacity of car is only 3+1. Thus, there was clear violation of sitting capacity
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
