ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. The Petitioner was the complainant before the District
Forum where his complaint was allowed in part, which was further
modified by the order of the State Commission on an appeal being
filed by the Respondent/opp. party.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner had a
Tata Sumo Car which was insured with the Respondent for Rs.
3,50,000/- for the period 21.7.98 to 20.7.99. This car was
stolen/looted on 12.2.99 by some miscreants who allegedly had
taken the car with driver for a test run with a view to purchase
the same on being satisfied about the performance of the car.
Matter was reported to the opp. party who appointed a Surveyor who
assessed the loss at Rs. 2.5 lakhs, yet this amount was not paid
and the claim repudiated on the ground that the Sumo Car was
registered as a private car but actually being used as
a tax, thus violating the terms of the policy. On a complaint
filed by the petitioner/complainant before the District Forum, it
allowed this complaint to the extent that it awarded Rs. 2.7
lakhs along with interest @ 12% p.a. and costs of Rs. 1000/- on
the ground that opp. party has failed to prove his case; cost of
the car was put at Rs. 3.00 lakhs and after providing for 10%
depreciation, payable value was put at Rs. 2.70 lakhs. On an
appeal filed by the Respondent/opp. party the State Commission
reversed the finding of the District Forum about the car being
used as a taxi, and directed the opp. party to settle this claim
treating this as a case of ‘non-standard claim’ and directed
payment of 75% of Rs. 2.5 lakhs, the loss estimated by the
Surveyor appointed by the Respondent – hence this petition by the
petitioner – complainant.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that there was no
ground with the State Commission to believe that the car was
being used as a taxi. This was a case of total loss, hence full
value of the car should have been awarded to him. Since this car
was not carrying fare-paying passenger, the State Commission
erred in settling the claim at 75% of the value. The order of
the State Commission needs to be set aside and the Revision
petition be allowed with costs. These contentions were
vehemently opposed by the learned Counsel for the Respondent.
4. We have seen the material on record and find that the
State Commission has taken pains to explain the reasons as to why
they arrived at the conclusion that the car was being used as a
taxi. We find it somewhat difficult to accept that when you
provide a car for test drive, one does not fill the full tank
with fuel. Car was sent to the Hotel. In our view, keeping in
view the totality of circumstances, the State Commission was
quite correct in arriving at the conclusion it did, and directing
the Respondent to settle the claim on ‘non-standard basis’ on a
value assessed by the Surveyor.
5. We find no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned
order of the State Commission. This Revision Petition is
dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.