Judgment:
R.C. Jain, Presiding Member:
Oral:
1. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and orders passed by the Fora below,i.e., order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra and thereafter order dated 12.12.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in appeal No. 1662/2011, the original complainant has approached this Commission by filing petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The District Forum have dismissed the complaint and uphold the repudiation of the insurance claim in respect of a motor vehicle bearing registration No. HR-56-3584, which was stolen from Azadpur area in Delhi. The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner affirming the order passed by the District Forum based on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Hachand Rai Chandan Lal, IV (2004) CPJ 15 (SC)=V (2004) SLT 876=JT 2004 (8) SC 8, and decision of this Commission in First Appeal No. 321 of 2005 titled NIA v. Trilochan Jane, IV (2012) CPJ 441 (NC).
3. Limited notice was issued to the respondent Insurance Company as to whether in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the insurance claim of the petitioner/complainant would be settled on non-standard basis going by the guidelines issued by GIC.
4. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have considered their respective submissions. Insurance claim lodged by the petitioner/complainant was repudiated on the ground of violation of two conditions of the policy ”one relatable to Clause 1 of the insurance policy casting an obligation on the insured to intimate the insurer immediately in case of any theft or damage of the insured vehicle and the other was about the breach of the statutory provisions of Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,i.e., the petitioner was not having any permit for the vehicle to travel into the territory of NCT of Delhi. Going by the nature and extent, the District Forum has taken pains to examine the matter in great detail and going by the legal position established by the Supreme Court and this Commission held that the repudiation of the claim was justified and the complainant was not entitled to the claim.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact there was no delay in intimating the respondent company because a telephonic information was passed to the respondents office on the date of the peril itself when the complainant lodged a report to the Police about the missing/theft of the Truck in question. Since the respondent insisted for a written intimation accompanying by the copy of the FIR, the same was given on 25.5.2009 immediately after FIR was lodged on 24.5.2009. There is no averment to this effect made in the complaint and no evidence has been led to establish that in fact a telephonic information was passed to the respondent on the date of peril itself and, therefore, the Fora below were justified in holding that there was delay in giving intimation.
6. So far as the violation of second condition that the Truck did not have the permit to travel into the territory of NCT of Delhi, Counsel for the petitioner/complainant this as factually correct.
7. Whether an insurer is duty bound to settle the claim of an insured on non-standard basis in all cases where there is a breach of the conditions of the Policy and breach of what conditions can be waived be better left to the discretion of the insurer. If the insurer going by the nature of the breach of the conditions is of the view that such a breach was of fundamental nature or was the cause of the peril, perhaps the insurer would be within its right to decline to settle the claim even on non-standard basis. In case of Amlendu Sahoo v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC)=II (2010) SLT 672, it is held that the insurer may settle the claim on non-standard basis going by the guidelines issued by the GIC but decision has to be applied to the facts of individual case. In that case, there was a breach of simple condition in regard to the private vehicle having been used for hire purposes and in another case cited therein the number of passengers were more than the authorised capacity of the vehicle. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court came to the rescue of the insured and directed the settlement of the claim to Rs. 2,50,000 as against the claimed amount of Rs. 5,50,000. The facts of the present case are altogether different as the petitioner/complainant have calculated risk of not informing the Insurance Company for whatever reasons even on date of peril or immediately after the peril and has taken its vehicle to a territory to which the vehicle was not entitled to enter. Even otherwise, in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2011) CPJ 19 (SC)=IV (2011) SLT 303, Supreme Court has reiterated the legal position that National Commission should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction/revisional power only in exceptional cases where there is either jurisdictional error or the orders passed by Fora below have resulted into miscarriage of justice. Going by the judgment, Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), in the present case we do not think that the Fora below have erred either on facts or in Law. The impugned order passed by the State Commission is justified. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed as devoid of any merit.
Revision Petition dismissed.