Reliance General Insurance Co. … vs Umed Singh And Others on 14 September, 2009

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                              CHANDIGARH

                              Civil Writ Petition No.11476 of 2009(O&M)
                                             Date of Decision: 14.09.2009

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
                                                                   Petitioner
                                   Versus
Umed Singh and others
                                                                Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH

Present:    Mr.Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner
                       .....

Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral)

C.M. No.15522 of 2009

This application has been moved for restoration of CWP

No.11476 of 2009, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 11.8.2009.

Application is accompanied by an affidavit of the counsel. In view of

reasons mentioned in this application, it is allowed, order dated 11.8.2009 is

recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number. On request

made by counsel for the petitioner, the same is taken on board for hearing

today.

CWP No.11476 of 2009

This writ petition has been filed against order dated 9.5.2009,

passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon (in

short the Lok Adalat), vide which, the petitioner was directed to pay an

amount of Rs.62,000/- along with interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of

order till payment to respondent No.1.

Heard.

Record reveals that respondent No.1 filed an application to

claim Rs.97,497/- from the petitioner on the ground that his Toyota vehicle
Civil Writ Petition No.11476 of 2009 2

bearing No.HR-55C-3548, which was insured for the period falling from

18.10.2007 to 17.10.2008, had met with an accident on 16.6.2008. Amount

claimed was towards the loss caused. Before the Lok Adalat, it was stated

by the petitioner that the vehicle was insured as a private vehicle, however,

the same was being used for commercial purpose, contrary to the terms and

conditions of the Policy, as such, no claim can be raised against the

petitioner. Lok Adalat tentatively came to a conclusion that letting of the

vehicle, free of charges, as claimed by respondent No.1, is not believable,

however, by taking the claim as ‘non-standard claim’, above said amount

was granted in favour of respondent No.1. The Lok Adalat observed as

under:-

“We have heard the parties. Baldev Raj brother of

Rajesh Malhotra lodged the FIR stating that Rajesh hired the

vehicle for going to Amritsar with his wife and children and he

too was going there in his separate car. He was following the

Toyota at the time of accident. This shows both the brothers

were going to Amritsar with their families and as the number

of members going there was large so the Toyota was hired.

The accident occurred near Khanna (Punjab) so FIR was

lodged in P.S. Sadar Khanna. There is nothing to disbelieve

the version of the FIR. The plea raised in the application that

Rajesh was friend of owner is without any substance. Keeping

in view the distance involved, the letting of vehicle free of

charges is ruled out. Still the claim could be settled as non-

standard claim. In 2005(3) CLT 336 National Insurance

Company vs. Faquir Chand it was observed that under clause

10(ii) of the procedural Manual in respect of the Motor
Civil Writ Petition No.11476 of 2009 3

Vehicle claim the breach of condition of policy in relation to

limitation as to use can be settled as non-standard claim i.e.

upto 75% of the admissible claim. In 1(2003) CPJ (NC) where

a private vehicle was being used as a taxi, the Distt. Consumer

Forum allowed the claim but the State Commission reversed

that decision, the Hon’ble National Commission allowed the

claim as Non-Standard claim.

The respondent appeared in this case through counsel

on 4.11.2008 but so far the report of the surveyor was not

produced. So in the circumstances the case is decided on the

basis of the bills of the workshop placed on record by the

applicant with necessary cut on account depreciation etc. The

workshop charged Rs.48965/- as the cost of metal parts used

in the repair while Rs.19312/- and Rs.4560/- was charges as

the cost of rubber/ plastic parts and glass parts respectively.

The vehicle was 2004 model and the accident occurred on

16.06.08. So the depreciation on the metal parts was

applicable at 15% while 50% of the rubber & plastic parts.

No depreciation is allowed on glass parts. So the depreciation

amount on metal parts comes to Rs.7345/- and Rs.9655/- on

rubber/ plastic parts total Rs.17000/-. The labour and Vat &

Taxes amounts to Rs.23250/-. The charges do not appear to be

excessive in any way. So after deducting the depreciation

charges and the amount of Rs.1500/- on account of excess

clause the amount comes to Rs.79000/-. After imposing a cut

at 25% there at for non-standard claim it stands reduced to

Rs.60,497/-. The applicant incurred an amount of Rs.4500/- as
Civil Writ Petition No.11476 of 2009 4

crane charges as the vehicle was brought from a long distance

but the rule permit the payment of Rs.1500/- on that account.

So the payable amount comes to Rs.61,997/- or say

Rs.62,000/-.”

Before this Court, nothing has been shown as to why the claim

cannot be treated as non-standard claim. Opinion expressed by the Lok

Adalat is perfectly justified. No case is made out for interference.

Dismissed.

14.09.2009                                   (Jasbir Singh)
gk                                               Judge