NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. vs Wakil Ahmad

PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner Insurance Company.

VERY briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant had insured his vehicle with the petitioner for the period from 7.3.1996 to 6.3.1997 which met with an accident. The matter was reported to the Police. The respondent got the vehicle repaired after incurring an expenditure of Rs. 82,661 and filed his claim along with bills for refund of this amount, which was repudiated on the ground that the vehicle which was meant for carrying goods, but it was found to be carrying passengers, thus, violated the terms of the policy. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 82,661 along with interest @ 12% p.a., from 10.6.1996 till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed before the State Commission, which was dismissed by the State Commission relying upon the order of the District Forum, which had relied upon the order of State Commission in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Narasaraopet and Anr. v. Syed Bude and State Commission had passed that order relying upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Rangaraju v. M/s. Orient Insurance Co. Ltd. Aggrieved by this order this revision petition has been filed before us.

THE basic facts are not in dispute that the vehicle was a goods carrier whereas at the time of accident it was carrying 56 persons, some of which were injured during accident. This is a clear case of violation of the conditions of the Policy. It is relevant to mention here that this matter relates to the year 1996 and General Insurance Corporation had issued guidelines to all the Insurance Companies on the claim settlement under several circumstances, including the carrying of passengers in a goods carrier. The relevant provision of the guidelines reads as follows: D. Passengers in goods vehicle -Carriage of unauthorised to be treated as Non -standard passengers in the Goods Carrying and settle upto 75% of the vehicle amounts to breach of assessed loss if othenvise in order. Limitation as to use'' clause.

IN view of the above provision, we are unable to sustain the order passed by both the lower Fora and direct the petitioner to settle the claim on non -standard basis and pay 75% of the loss assessed by the Surveyor along with interest @ 9% for the period as given by both the lower Fora within a period of six weeks from the passing of this order. If there is any excess payment already made by the petitioner Insurance Company to the respondent, the petitioner would be at liberty to recover this excess amount from the respondent/complainant.

THE revision petition stands disposed of in above terms.