NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Kay Vee Enterprises – Respondent
Revision Petition No. 2426 of 2017
Decided On : 26-03-2024
Insurance - Claim Settlement - Sections 279, 304-A, 337, 338 IPC - The court interpreted the principles of non-standard claim settlement in insurance, emphasizing that breaches not fundamental allow for partial claims, influencing the decision to modify the compensation amount based on the degree of overloading.
Fact of the Case:
The Complainant, a dealer, had an Open Marine Policy and suffered a loss due to an accident while transporting oil. The insurance claim was initially rejected by the insurer on grounds of overloading, leading to a complaint before the District Forum, which was dismissed. The State Commission later allowed the appeal, directing the insurer to pay 75% of the insured amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claim should be settled on a non-standard basis due to overloading, which was not a fundamental breach. The actual overloading was determined to be 63.32% over the permissible limit, leading to a modification of the compensation amount.
Issues: Whether the insurance claim was valid despite the alleged overloading and whether the insurer's repudiation was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that non-fundamental breaches allow for claims to be settled on a non-standard basis, and the degree of overloading affects the compensation amount.
Result: The Revision Petition is allowed, modifying the compensation to reflect a 63.32% reduction from the insured amount.
ORDER :
1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the impugned Order dated 09.11.2016 passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in Appeal No. 1430/2013 vide which, the Appeal filed by the Complainant was allowed and the Order of the Ld. District Forum dismissing the complaint was set-aside.
2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant who is engaged in the trade of both edible and non-edible items as a dealer and commission agent, procured an Open Marine Policy from the Petitioner, with policy number OG-12-1203-1005-0000001, covering the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012. Despite not receiving a copy of the policy, the Complainant operated under the belief that its terms and conditions mirrored those of policies obtained for two other affiliated firms from the Petitioner. On 07.06.2011, the Complainant contracted M/s Sahni Tanker Service to transport 30.850 tons of rice bran oil to a consignee in Kanpur Dehat. The value of the oil amounted to Rs. 16,25,795/-. The oil was being transported in a tanker bearing registration number PB-11-AF-9577 when it was involved in an accident near Agra on 12.06.2011, resulting in the loss of the entire consignment. A First Information Report (FIR) was subsequently filed under Sections 279, 304-A, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code at PS Kosikalan, Mathura. Upon notifying the Petitioner's office in Agra, a surveyor was appointed to assess the damages. Following the surveyor's inspection and submission of a survey report, the Petitioner requested additional documentation for the claims process, which the Complainant promptly provided. However, the Petitioner rejected the claim in a letter dated 23.08.2011. Subsequently, the Complainant issued a Legal Notice dated 20.12.2011, demanding payment of the claim amount within 15 days. Despite this, no response was received from the Petitioner. In response to the wrongful repudiation of the claim, the Complainant filed its complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Ludhiana.
3. The District Forum vide its Order dated 23.10.2013 dismissed the complaint. The Complainant then filed Appeal before the Ld. State Commission, which allowed the same vide the impugned Order dated 09.11.2016, and directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant 75% of the insured amount along with interest @8% p.a. from the date of repudiation till the date of realization. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order are set out as below:
7. With regard to the next objection that complaint is not maintainable because the business of complainant was commercial, it is settled principle of law that insurance is taken for
Amalendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Lakshmi Chand vs. Reliance General Insurance
Lakshmi Chand vs. Reliance General Insurance
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nitin Khandelwal
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parshottam Kumar
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parshotam Kumar
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. B. Ramareddy
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Manubhai Dharmasinhbhai Gajera and Others
Insurance claims can be settled on a non-standard basis for non-fundamental breaches, with compensation adjusted according to the degree of overloading.
Admissible Claim – Complainant/Respondent is found entitled to an amount not exceeding 75% of the admissible claim. The actual over-loading in the given case was to an extent of 15.83 MT over and abo....
Insurance claims cannot be repudiated for minor breaches not causally linked to the loss; non-standard settlements are valid.
A claim can be settled on a non-standard basis despite breach of insurance policy conditions if not deemed fundamental; overloading does not invalidate all claims.
Goods Vehicle Insurance – Insured cannot be given amount beyond agreed Insured Declared Value (IDV) under Insurance Policy.
Violation of Policy Condition – insured vehicle was being used for hire in violation of the policy condition, the claim cannot be repudiated in toto but should be settled upto 75% of the admissible c....
(1) Transparency and Exclusion Clauses – The Commission emphasized that if an insurance company intends to exclude certain liabilities based on specific interpretations, they must be transparently di....
(1) Insurance Policy between Insurer and insured has to be strictly construed to determine extent of liability of Insurer.(2) Insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by Insurance Poli....
Damage to vehicle in accident – When there is overloading of vehicle beyond licensed carrying capacity, claim has to be settled for not exceeding 75% of admissible claim.
(1) Non-Standard Settlement – In cases of theft where there is a contributory factor or breach of warranty (like limitation as to use) that is not fundamental to the loss, the claim should be settled....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.