State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Iffco Tokio Gic vs Anil Jain on 8 December, 2015
M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
Appeal No.1598/2014
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. ... Appellant
Vs.
Anil ... Respondent
BEFORE;
HON'BLE SMT. NEERJA SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI SUBHASH JAIN, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI S.D. AGARWAL, MEMBER
DATED: 8th DECEMBER, 2015
ORDER
Shri Vikas Rai, counsel for appellant.
This appeal is by the opposite party, the IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company), aggrieved by the order dated 08.07.14, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore in CC No. 1037/11.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is the owner of a Tavera vehicle, which was insured by the appellant Insurance Company for the period 26.02.10 to 25.02.11. On 3.1.11, the vehicle met with an accident. A report was made at the concerned police station and the : 2 : Insurance Company were informed. An investigator Shri D S Bhasin was appointed. The respondent states that he spent Rs.2,44,012/- in the repairs of the vehicle but the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company, on 13.6.11, on the ground of breach of policy conditions.
3. The appellant Insurance Company states that the vehicle was registered and insured as a private vehicle, but on investigation by Shri D S Bhasin, it was found that it was being used commercially to carry employees of the Doordarshan Department. The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.1,96,850/-, but as the vehicle was being used in violation of the policy conditions, the claim was repudiated.
4. The District Forum held that the vehicle was being used commercially and directed the Insurance Company to pay, Rs.1,47,638/- i.e. 75% of the amount assessed by the surveyor with 8% interest from the date of repudiation. Rs.3000/- was awarded for mental agony and Rs.1000/- as costs.
5. Heard on admission.
6. The appellant have come in appeal on the ground that no amount is payable and that the scheme for payment : 3 : on non-standard basis is only for nationalized Insurance Companies and not for private companies.
7. The law on the point of commercial use of a vehicle is now too well settled. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Amlendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , II (1010) CPJ 9 (SC), has held that in cases of breach of policy conditions, the claim should be settled on a non-standard basis.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no infirmity in the order of the District Forum in directing the Insurance Company to settle the claim on a non-standard basis.
9. In the result, the appeals fails and is dismissed summarily, notwithstanding that it is time barred by 2 months and 6 days, for which an application has been filed. No order as to costs.
(SMT. NEERJA SINGH) (SUBHASH JAIN) (S.D. AGARWAL) PRESIDING MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER