New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Nasib Singh

THIS is an appeal filed by the Regional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited (for short hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company) and others against order dated 17.5.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No. 698 of 2002 vide which the complaint was allowed and the appellants/O.Ps. were directed to pay to the respondent/complainant 75% of the total claim amount of Rs. 1,30,000/-, which was worked out at Rs. 97,500/- with interest @ 7% per annum from 13.2.1997 when the claim was repudiated till payment. A sum of Rs. 1,100/- was awarded as costs of litigation.

THE main submission raised before us by Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate appearing for the appellants is that the claim of the respondent/complainant regarding the loss caused to the vehicle in question was repudiated under Clause (ii) of the Circular issued by the GIS regarding such cases where there had been violation of the terms and conditions embodied in the policy of insurance. THE Circular mentioned two grounds under which the claim was to be considered and the same reads as under : (i) Where the vehicle is registered and insured as a private car but at the material time of accident some indication is there in the Survey report/investigation report that the vehicle was used for hire and reward but no concrete documentary evidence is available. Such claims may be negotiated and settled as non-standard up to 75% of the assessed amount of loss.

(ii) Where there is a concrete documentary proof available to prove that the vehicle registered and insured as private car was used for hire and reward, the O/D claim be repudiated being violation of policy condition."

These guidelines were issued by the GIS. Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate pointed out that in the instant case, the vehicle in question was insured as a private car under policy No. 31/29095, which was valid for the period from 3.7.1996 to 2.7.1997. The vehicle in question was a Maruti Van bearing registration No. CH-01-J-4851. The said vehicle was stolen on 20.19.1996 and First Information Report was lodged at Police Station Bachraghat, District Solan (H.P.). The material, which was taken into consideration by the Insurance Company comprised the investigation conducted by the Surveyor-cum-Loss Assessor-cum-Investigator who found the vehicle being plied as a taxi for hire, which violated the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance, which covered the risk for the aforesaid period.

Apart from it, reliance was made on the averments made in the FIR. It was on the basis of the aforesaid report and the averments made in the FIR that the claim was considered under Clause (ii), which provided for a concrete documentary proof available to prove that the vehicle registered and insured as private car was used for hire and reward. A careful perusal of Clauses (i) and (ii) will go to show that the only distinction in the two clauses is about there being a concrete documentary proof available to prove that the vehicle was registered and insured as private car was used for hire and reward, so as to bring the claim preferred by the respondent/complainant under Clause (ii) aforesaid. However, Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate was unable to point out to any single document, which could be held to be a concrete documentary proof referred to in Clause (ii). It may be mentioned that the allegations made in the FIR are not substantive piece of evidence. The averments made in the FIR, which is lodged about some occurrence taking place, in which a cognizable offence is said to have been committed, are of corroborative value and not substantive piece of evidence and cannot be treated as concrete documentary evidence. So far as the report of survey and investigation is concerned, the same can also not be held to be concrete documentary proof, which is referred to in Clause 9(ii). It is relevant to point out that under Clause (i), it is mentioned that where the vehicle is registered and insured as a private car but at the material time of accident some indication is there in the Survey report/Investigation report that the vehicle was used for hire and reward but no concrete documentary evidence is available, such claims are to be negotiated and settled as non-standard up to 75% of the assessed amount of loss.

IT is abundantly clear that the survey report/investigation report has not been treated as a concrete documentary evidence and the same is excluded from the category of concrete documentary evidence in Clause (i) aforesaid. The District Forum, in our considered opinion, was right in holding that the guidelines provided for settlement of claim as non-standard claim under Clause (i) and to pay to the claimants 75% of the admissible claim and further that there was no concrete documentary evidence, which is referred to in Clause (ii).

MR. Suman Jain, Advocate, in the next place, contended that Clause (i) enables the award of 75% of the total claim amount and which could not mean that the Forum should necessarily grant compensation of 75%. In other words, it was urged that the compensation could be awarded of a lesser percentage than 75%. Even in this regard, the learned Counsel for the appellants failed to show any mitigating circumstances under which it could be said that the District Forum should have awarded compensation of a lesser percentage than 75%. It cannot be disputed that the amount up to 75% of the total claim amount could be awarded under Clause (i) and in the instant case, the District Forum was of the considered opinion that the amount, which should be awarded to the complainant under the policy of insurance should be 75%. We have no material on record and at least no such material has been referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellants from where we could reasonably infer that the District Forum went wrong in awarding 75% of the total amount of the claim. The repudiation of the claim, it may be pointed out, was not based on proper appreciation of the claim and the Insurance Company was deficient in rendering due service hired and availed by the complainant/respondent by taking the policy of insurance from the Insurance Company inasmuch as the appellants for no valid reasons repudiated the claim under Clause (ii) of the guidelines aforesaid. According to our considered view no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order of the District Forum. Resultantly, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed in limine. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.