National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Jagdish Rana vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 15 February, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 178 OF 2011 (From the order dated 20.09.2010 in Appeal No.656/2006 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula) Jagdish Rana S/o Shri Amar Singh Resident of House No.1313, Urban Estate, Jind, Haryana Petitioner/Complainant Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office II, SCO 337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, Through its Branch Manager Respondent/Opposite Party BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Nanita Sharma, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 15th February, 2013 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 20.09.2010 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. Vs. 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 surveyors 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 & 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 consumer 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.
XXXX XXXX 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 extra-oridinary 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 LPGas Kit and in the Dicky ehrere are Gas Cylinder Belts and all these items have been depicted in the fotos snapped by us.
4. Hire & Reward-
Aspect is also attracted and presumably the car was hired for the marriage party as the driver and occupants belongs 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 and more persons were travelling in the car than permitted. The car was fitted with the LP Gas Kit and in the Dicky Gas Cylinder Belts were found which depicts that at the time of accident the car was driven by LPG without authorization. As far as influence of liquor is concerned, post-mortem report filed by the petitioner does not confirm that occupants of the car were under influence of liquor; hence, this violation cannot be accepted. As far as violation regarding hire & reward is concerned, presumption was drawn by surveyor, as car was going in the marriage party and occupants were of two villages. This cannot be the ground for holding that car was plied on hire at the time of accident.
7. Thus, it becomes clear that there were two violations - one regarding sitting capacity and the other regarding use of LP Gas Kit at the time of accident.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on II (2009) CPJ 9 (SC) Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. in which at the time of accident the vehicle was used on hire basis whereas, insured for personal use, it was held that repudiation of claim totally was not justified and Honble Apex Court directed to settle the claim on non-standard basis. He also placed reliance on II (2006) CPJ 144 (NC) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narayan Prasad Appaprasad Pathak in which at the time of accident vehicle was carrying more passengers than permitted and claim was settled at 75%. He also placed reliance on II (2006) CPJ 83 (NC) United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Gian Singh in which vehicle met with an accident carrying 12 unauthorized persons and National Commission directed to settle claim on non-standard basis. In the light of above citations, it becomes clear that even though petitioners car was carrying more passengers than permissible, petitioner is entitled to get his claim on non-standard basis.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on order of this Commission in R.P. No. 3857 of 2011 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Surinder Kumar Chaturvedi & Anr.
in which claim was settled on non-standard basis as vehicle was fitted with LP Gas Kit at the time of accident, though, it was a petrol vehicle. Thus, it becomes clear that even if there is violation of this condition, claim has to be settled on non-standard basis and Insurance Company was not right in dismissing claim in toto.
9. As there are two violations, it would be appropriate to deduct 25% amount on the count of each violation of terms of policy. Vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs.77,500/- and vehicle met with an accident after 4 months of insurance policy, in such circumstances, value of vehicle can be taken as Rs.70,000/- and 50% amount is to be deducted on account of violations of terms of policy. In such circumstances, petitioner was entitled to get Rs.35,000/-. Learned District Forum opined salvage value of the vehicle to be Rs.15,000/- and in such circumstances, after deducting salvage value, petitioner is entitled to get Rs.20,000/- from the opposite party.
10. Learned State Commission has committed error in accepting appeal and dismissing complaint in toto and in the light of above discussion, revision petition is to be allowed partly and petitioner is entitled to get Rs.20,000/- from the OP.
10. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner against the OP is partly allowed and impugned order dated 20.9.2010 passed by the learned State Commission in Appeal No.656 of 2006 is set aside and order of District Forum dated 13.1.2006 is modified and it is held that petitioner is entitled to get Rs.20,000/- along with 9% p.a. interest from 6.5.2003 till realization from the OP/respondent along with Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses as awarded by learned District Forum.
..Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k