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 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 2 Civil Writ Petition No.11476 of 2009 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 3 Civil Writ Petition No.11476 of 2009 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 4