PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.       Aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2011 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 1457 of 2010, the original complainant has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 16.09.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jamnagar (for short the District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 325 of 2009, whereby the complaint was partly allowed and the District Forum directed the Insurance Company to settle the claim of the petitioner/complainant in respect of the damage of a car on non-standard basis i.e. to the extent of 75% of the assessed loss.  Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company filed appeal before the State Commission mainly on the ground that there was a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, inasmuch as at the relevant time of the accident of the vehicle, the vehicle was not carrying the vehicle fitness certificate (in Form-38) and the insured did not possess an effective contract carriage permit entitling him to run the vehicle.  The State Commission upheld the said pleas and allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Insurance Company was fully justified in repudiating the claim on the said grounds.

2.       We have heard Mr. Priyank Adhyaru, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant and have considered his submissions.  He submits that the District Forum had rightly held that the claim of the petitioner/complainant ought to have been settled on non-standard basis i.e. by paying 75% of the assessed loss because the breach in regard to the fitness certificate was not so fundamental as to disentitle the petitioner/complainant altogether in his claim.  He also seeks to support his contention from an order dated 05.07.2012 rendered by this Commission in Revision Petition No. 1318 of 2012 (IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Madansinh Genaji Bhati), wherein this Commission simply noted that the application of the guidelines of Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) could not only be restricted to four general insurance companies and it could be made equally applicable to private insurance companies.  Even going by the said proposition, we are of the view that in the case there was no settlement of the claim on non-standard basis because the breach of the terms and conditions was so fundamental which would disentitle the petitioner/complainant to make the claim.  The State Commission was, therefore, fully justified in taking the view it has taken and we see no illegality, material irregularity much less any jurisdictional error, which warrants interference of this Commission in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction vested under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          Dismissed.