AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
COUNSEL for the parties present. Arguments heard.
THE State Commission, while placing reliance on the judgments of Hon''ble Apex Court in Amalendu Shahu Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2010 2 CPJ 9 (SC), National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, 2008 7 SCALE 351, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gyansing, 2006 CTJ 221 (CP) (NCDRC) and a judgment of this Commission in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narayan Prasad,2006 CPJ 144(NC), settled the claim of the complainant on ''non -standard'' basis. The main point against the complainant was that he was driving the vehicle with more than the permissible number of passengers. The number of persons carrying in the vehicle was 11, against the permissible number, i.e. 5.
LEARNED counsel for the petitioner/OP vehemently argued that the above cited authorities are not applicable to OP. He contended that the said guidelines apply to only Public Sector Undertakings and not to Private Sector Undertakings. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/ complainant has invited our attention towards two judgments of this Commission, the first being reported in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Santosh Singh, RP 2715 of 2014, decided on 18.07.2014, wherein in para No.8, which is reproduced as under, the following view was taken : - "(8) It would be seen that the Hon''ble Apex Court also relied upon the guidelines issued by General Insurance Corporation Ltd., while allowing the appeal filed by the insured. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said guidelines did not apply to the petitioner company, the same being applicable only to the Public Sector Undertakings, which are subsidiary of the General Insurance Corporation Ltd. In our opinion, the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. case is not based entirely on the guidelines issued by the General Insurance Corporation Ltd., though it does take note of the said guidelines. In para 12 of the order, the Hon''ble Apex Court expressly referred to its earlier decision in Nitin Khandelwal as well as to the decision of this Commission in Gian Singh . Therefore, it cannot be said that had the guidelines of General Insurance Corporation Ltd. not been applicable, the decision would have been different. Moreover, in Nitin Khandelwal , there was absolutely no reference to the guidelines issued by the General Insurance Corporation Ltd. and therefore, it cannot be said that the aforesaid decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court was based upon the said guidelines. In these circumstances, we find no reason to take a view different from the view taken by the State Commission. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed".
SIMILAR view was taken in the second case reported in Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Madansinh Genaji Bhati, RP No. 1318 of 2012, decided on 05.07.2012.
CONSEQUENTLY , we hereby dismiss the revision petition.