National Consumer Disputes Redressal
New India Assurance Co. ... vs Jhankar Singh, Mr.G.S. Narula on 19 May, 2006
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 592 OF 2005 (From the order dated 23.12.04 in Appeal No.537/96 of the State Commission, Delhi) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Regd . Office : 87 M.G. Road Fort Mumbai. Regional Office : Jeevan Bharti Building Level V, Tower II 124 Connaught Circus New Delhi 110 001. Petitioner Versus Jhankar Singh 21/2464 Basti Punjabian Roshanara Road Delhi 110 007. Respondent REVISION PETITION NO.991 OF 2005 (from the order dated 23.12.04 in Appeal No.537/96 of the State Commission, Delhi) Jhankar Singh 21/2464 Basti Punjabian Roshanara Road Delhi 110 007. Petitioner Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Regd . Office : 87 M.G. Road Fort Mumbai. Regional Office : Jeevan Bharti Building Level V, Tower II 124 Connaught Circus New Delhi 110 001. Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR.JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. KAPOOR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ms.Anjalli Bansall, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.G.S. Narula, Advocate 19.05.2006 O R D E R
M.B. SHAH, J., PRESIDENT Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgement and order dated 23.12.2004 passed by the State Commission, Delhi in Appeal No.A-537/1996 confirming the order dated 2.5.1996 passed by the District Forum, Delhi in Complaint Case No.1544/1994, the insurance company has preferred this Revision Petition.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company vehemently contended that the order passed by the State Commission is on the face of it illegal because the State Commission has mixed up with the contention of the insurance company that there was an exception in the terms of the insurance policy that if the vehicle is to be plied beyond the geographical area of India, then necessary endorsement was required to be obtained by the insured. Learned counsel relies upon the general exception to the policy which provides that the company shall not be liable under the policy in respect of any accident, loss, damage caused/sustained or incurred outside the geographical area of India.
As against this, it has been pointed out by the learned Council, Mr. Narula, that in the General Regulations prepared by the Tariff Advisory Committee, it is specifically provided that It is not permissible to issue policies except in the Standard Forms provided in the Tariffs. Insurers are however entitled without obtaining permission from the Miscellaneous Sub-Committee concerned, to restrict the Cover under the Standard B Policy Forms without reduction in premium or to increase the premium for the same or restricted cover. With this exception, no company may alter or extend in the slightest degree the Standard Cover, Terms and Conditions of Policies otherwise than as laid down in the Tariff without first obtaining the written authority to do so from the Miscellaneous Sub-Committee of the Region concerned.
Thereafter, for extension of geographical area, the General Regulation No.3 provides as under:
3. Extension of Geographical Area Insurers may extend the Geographical Area of Motor Policies to include Nepal and Bhutan as the case may be without charging any additional premium. Endorsement No.25 must be used.
Insurers may extend the geographical area of Motor Policies to include Bangladesh by charging flat additional premium as stated below :
(For any period up to 12 months) For B Policy : Rs.50/- for each vehicle (irrespective of the class) For policies other: Rs.10/- for each vehicle Than B Policies (irrespective of the class) Endorsement No.25 must be used.
From the aforesaid regulation, it is clear that there is distinction between plying of the vehicle in Nepal & Bhutan and plying of the vehicle in Bangladesh. For plying the vehicle in Bangladesh, a token amount of Rs.50/- is to be paid by the insured while for plying the vehicle in Nepal or Bhutan no fees are payable.
Considering this aspect, both the District Forum and the State Commission referred to exclusion Clause-10 for directing the insurance company to pay the compensation on the basis of non-standard claim. The relevant portion for determining the payment on the basis of the non-standard claims is as under:
NON STANDARD CLAIMS Following types of claim shall be considered as non standard and shall be settled as indicated below after recording the reasons:
S.No. Description %age of settlement
1.
Under declaration of licensed carrying capacity Deduct 3 years difference in premium from the amount of claim of deduce 25% of claim amount, whichever is higher.
2. Overloading of vehicles beyond licensed carrying capacity Pay claim not exceeding 75% of admissible claim
3. Any other breach of warranty condition of policy including limitation as to use Pay upto 75% of admissible claim.
For breach of warranties conditions which do not involve any saving in premiums or any additional exposure of the insurers, such claims be considered as Standard Claims e.g. Route Permit.
Hence, the order passed by the State Commission is in conformity with the provisions of the General Regulations framed by the Tariff Advisory Committee.
In the result, the Revision Petition filed by the Insurance Company is required to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Revision Petition No.991 of 2005:
This Revision Petition is filed for enhancement of the compensation.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insured submitted that as per the survey report, loss was assessed at Rs.1,90,000/-. From the said amount, Rs.60,000/- was reduced for the salvage. The surveyor arrived at the conclusion that the insurance company was liable to pay Rs.1,30,000/- on total loss basis. It is his contention that the Surveyor has wrongly arrived at the conclusion that the value of the salvage was Rs.60,000/- and in any case the Complainant was prepared to deliver the salvage to the Insurance Company. For this, the Insurance Company should be directed to pay the garage rent.
Considering the aforesaid submission, in our view, if the Complainant delivers the salvage to the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company is required to pay a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- which is the loss assessed by the Surveyor.
Hence, the Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.1,90,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% from 22.4.1993 (that is after 6 months from the date of the accident).
The complainant is directed to hand-over the salvage to the insurance company, if required by the company. Complainant would complete all the formalities sought by the insurance company.
The learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the complainant has made false statement before the District Forum and has filed a forged letter to the effect that he had informed the insurance company for the endorsement that he has taken the vehicle outside India. Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that this is apparently a false statement made by the complainant and falsehood should not be encouraged.
In our view, the aforesaid submission is justified.
Unfortunately, we have developed a wrong practice wherein each and every statement in the pleading is denied and the real issue for decision is not highlighted or on occasions incorrect or false averments are made. To curtail or control this practice proper orders are required to be passed in each matter.
In this view of the matter, we direct the insurance company to deduct Rs.20,000/- from the amount awarded to the complainant as he has falsely averred that he had written letter to the insurance company for endorsement.
Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that neither the State Commission nor the District Forum took this aspect into consideration. We direct that in future, the District Forums and the State Commissions all over the country would take into consideration that if false averments are made in pleadings or evidence, appropriate direction/order imposing penalty depending upon the facts of the case would be passed.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
J. (M.B. SHAH) PRESIDENT Sd/-
..J. (S.N. KAPOOR) MEMBER