THE ABSENCE OF A VALID FITNESS CERTIFICATE AND THE SUBMISSION OF A FORGED CERTIFICATE CONSTITUTE FUNDAMENTAL BREACHES OF AN INSURANCE POLICY, JUSTIFYING THE INSURANCE COMPANY'S REJECTION OF THE CLAIM.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"1. The impugned judgment dated 16.06.2017 (Annexure-7) passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Jodhpur may kindly be set aside.

2. The claim petition filed by the petitioner under Section 22-B of the Act of 1987 may kindly be allowed in toto with costs.

3. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed.

4. The costs of the writ petition may kindly be ordered to be awarded to the petitioner."

2. The present petitioner is a partnership Firm. As per the pleaded case of the petitioner, a claim was lodged before the respondent No.1-The Oriental Insurance Company Limited on 16.09.2010 in respect of an insured Truck bearing registration No.RJ 19 GA 2231, which met with an accident and was resultantly damaged. The said claim was made for Rs.4,50,000/-. However, the respondent-Insurance Company denied the claim on 18.09.2012 on the ground that as per the investigation report, the fitness certificate was not effective at the time of accident.

3. The petitioner made an averment in the writ petition that the respondent has not been able to establish the investigator's report before the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Jodhpur, and therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's claim on the ground of non-availability of the fitness certificate was not correct.

4. As the pleaded facts would further reveal, the claim of the petitioner was repudiated on 27.02.2013, against which the petitioner moved an application under Section 22-B of the Public Utility Service of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 before the respondent No.2.

5. The claim petition filed by the petitioner was registered as Claim Case No.19/2016, and after proper adjudication, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Jodhpur dismissed the claim of the petitioner vide judgment/award dated 16.06.2017.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the parameters for deciding the non-standard claims, as contained in condition No.10 of Procedural Manual of Motor Claims (own damage and third party), and the said condition No.10 reads as under:

"10. NON STANDARD CLAIMS

Following types of claims shall be considered as nonstandard and shall be settled as indicated below after recording the reasons:

For breach of warranties/conditions which do not involve any saving in premiums or any additional exposure to the Insurers, such claims be considered as Standard Claims e.g. Route Permit."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that such non-standard claims have to be paid to the extent of 75% on the breach of any particular condition in the Policy, and even if the Policy contained a condition of fitness certificate, then at best, the non-standard claim of the petitioner could have been payable upto 75%.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a fitness certificate was in fact produced, but has not been accepted by the respondent.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the respondent-Insurance Company is duty bound to accept the claim of the petitioner, once it has issued the Policy, and at best, it could have awarded a non-standard claim, as per condition 10 (iii) as quoted hereinabove