National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs PREM CHAND

IN this revision petition the petitioner, National INsurance Company has challenged the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Chandigarh whereby the State Commission accepted the appeal and proceeded to grant relief in accordance with the guidelines of the INsurance Company for settlement of non-standard claims.

THE facts in brief giving rise to the case before the District Forum, Kurukshetra are that the complainant, who was the registered owner of a Maruti Van bearing No. HR-05-5565 had lodged a claim with the Insurance Company for theft of the vehicle from the parking lot of PGI, Chandigarh. It is not in dispute that at the time of theft, there was no one in the vehicle and it was lying duly parked. THE District Forum after setting out the facts and the ground of repudiation which was based on the report of an Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company, dismissed the complaint holding that it involved complicated questions of law and facts which cannot be gone into by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On appeal being preferred before the State Commission, the Counsel for the Insurance Company concealed that there did exist a policy based on the guidelines of settling certain claims, which are not strictly falling within the limitation as to use clause in the policy, as non-standard claims and provided that such claims could be settled up to maximum of 75%. Such guidelines are contained in the Procedural Manual of Motor Claims. The relevant clause of the said Manual is Clause 10 which reads as under : "(10) Non-Standard Claims: Following types of claims shall be considered as non-standard and shall be settled as indicated below after recording the reasons :

SI. No. Description Percentage of settlement Under declaration of licensed carrying capacity Deduct 3 years'' differencein premium from the amount of claim of deduct 25% of claim amount, whichever is higher. Overloading of vehicles beyond licensed carrying capacity. Pay claims not exceeding 75% of admissible claim. Any other breach of warranty/condition of policy including limitation as to use. Pay upto 75% of admissible claim. (Emphasis supplied)

The existence of this procedure and practice was duly admitted by the Counsel for the Insurance Company. The view taken by the State Commission is in consonance with the view expressed by this Commission earlier. We find that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and, consequently, there is no merit in this case. No other grounds were urged before us at the hearing. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.