{"id":333008,"date":"2024-10-15T09:00:53","date_gmt":"2024-10-15T03:30:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=333008"},"modified":"2024-10-14T18:36:31","modified_gmt":"2024-10-14T13:06:31","slug":"consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/15\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\/","title":{"rendered":"Consumer Protection | Deciphering Non-Standard Settlement of Motor Insurance Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Introduction<\/h4>\n

Typically, in motor insurance, a “standard claim” arises when there is no violation of policy conditions and a loss occurs. Conversely, if a policy condition is breached but is not fundamental to the cause or extent of the loss, the settlement may be compromised. In such cases, a portion of the claim proportionate to the breach is deducted, and the balance is paid out. This is known as a “non-standard” settlement.<\/p>\n

The consumer fora first recognised the concept of non-standard\/compromised claims in Kesarben<\/span> v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span>1<\/sup><\/a>, where a claim arising from the theft of a private vehicle being used for hire or reward was ordered to be settled on a non-standard basis. However, this type of settlement is not stipulated by the insurance contract itself, meaning it is an extra-contractual option available to the insurer. Moreover, there are currently no regulatory guidelines from the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) governing this practice, leading to significant ambiguity on the matter.<\/p>\n

This concept has only been legitimised and refined primarily by the proactive efforts of Consumer courts and in this article, we will explore the various types of violations that permit the non-standard settlement of motor claims.<\/p>\n

Breach Type 1 — Private vehicle was being plied for hire or reward<\/h4>\n

Motor insurance policies covering private vehicles typically include “limitations as to use”, one of which prohibits the use of the vehicle for hire or reward, such as transporting goods or passengers for hire or reward. As such usage constitutes a breach of policy terms, can the insurer settle claims arising out of the theft or accident of such vehicles on a non-standard basis?<\/p>\n

In instances where a private vehicle used for hire or reward is stolen, the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Nitin Khandelwal<\/span>2<\/sup><\/a> held that if the breach of a policy condition is not germane to the cause of the loss, the insurer cannot outright deny the claim. Instead, the claim should be settled on a non-standard basis. In this case, since the vehicle’s use for hire did not contribute to its theft, the insurer’s complete denial of the claim was overturned. The Court underscored the necessity of a direct causal connection between the policy breach and the ensuing loss.<\/p>\n

Similarly, in a case where a private vehicle used to transport passengers for hire was involved in an accident, the Supreme Court granted 75% of the admissible claim, citing the guidelines issued by the General Insurance Corporation (GIC), which permit non-standard settlements in instances of a warranty breach.3<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The aforementioned rulings have played a pivotal role in establishing the concept of non-standard settlements and continue to be authoritative law. These decisions highlight that a key criterion for a non-standard settlement is the absence of a direct link between the breach of a policy condition and the cause or extent of the loss. They affirm that non-standard settlements are justified when the breach is unrelated to the loss incurred. If the breach does not fundamentally impact the cause or severity of the loss, it warrants resolving the claim on a non-standard basis.<\/p>\n

Breach Type 2 — There was a delay in intimation of loss<\/h4>\n

Delay in intimation to the insurer<\/p>\n

The terms of an insurance contract require the insured to promptly notify the insurer of any loss. This allows the insurer to initiate an investigation to verify the loss and determine its extent. Additionally, in cases of theft, it is crucial to report the incident to the police to facilitate efforts to recover the stolen vehicle.4<\/sup><\/a> We shall now explore whether non-standard settlement of claims is permissible if a delay has been caused in intimating the loss to either the insurer or the police.<\/p>\n

Regarding delayed notification to the insurance company, the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Parvesh Chander Chadha<\/span>5<\/sup><\/a> initially ruled against allowing non-standard settlements when the insured fails to promptly inform the insurer of the loss, even if timely notification is given to the police. However, this stance was overturned in 2020 when a larger Bench of the Supreme Court held that if the police were promptly informed and the claim is determined to be genuine, the insurer cannot reject the claim solely on the basis of delayed notification to the insurer.6<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Additionally, in 2011, the IRDA issued a Circular7<\/sup><\/a> advising insurers to avoid repudiating claims solely on the basis of delayed notification, provided there is a credible explanation for the delay and it is evident that the delay resulted from unavoidable circumstances.<\/p>\n

Therefore, in cases of delayed intimation to the insurer, the question of a compromised settlement does not arise.<\/p>\n

Delay in intimation to the police<\/p>\n

But what about cases where there is a delay in intimation to the police itself? Can such cases be resolved on a non-standard basis?<\/p>\n

Between the period of 2006-2015, several rulings by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Ncdrc<\/span>)8<\/sup><\/a> established that an unexplained delay in reporting a theft to the police would result in the denial of any insurance claim, as it constitutes a fundamental breach of policy conditions, frustrating any efforts to recover the vehicle. In these rulings, the possibility of awarding claims on a non-standard basis was not considered. However, a shift in this approach occurred in 2019, when in National Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Tarlok Singh<\/span>9<\/sup><\/a> the Ncdrc<\/span> awarded 75% of the admissible claim on a non-standard basis due to a delay in notifying the police. This decision was based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Amalendu Sahoo case<\/span>10<\/sup><\/a>, which allowed for compromised settlements in cases of policy breaches.<\/p>\n

Following this precedent, the Ncdrc<\/span> began awarding 50-75% of the admissible claim in cases where a delay in notifying the police was evident.11<\/sup><\/a> Most recently, in July 2024, the Ncdrc<\/span> upheld a State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Scdrc<\/span>) decision that awarded 60% of the claim amount in a case where there was a 10-day delay in reporting the theft to the police.12<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

[Author’s suggestion: Often, the police may refuse to register a first information report (FIR) immediately, advising complainants to attempt tracing the vehicle themselves first. This can later be construed as a delay in notification, albeit unintentional. To address situations where the police are reluctant to file an FIR promptly, consumers might consider filing an e-FIR online. The time-stamped e-FIR would carry significant probative value in consumer courts, helping to establish timely notification.]<\/p>\n

Breach Type 3 — Vehicle was overloaded beyond its licensed carrying capacity<\/h4>\n

Overloading vehicles beyond their maximum authorised capacity constitutes a breach of the insurance contract. Given our earlier discussion, one might anticipate a non-standard settlement for such claims. However, in 1996, the Supreme Court in B.V. Nagaraju<\/span> v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span>13<\/sup><\/a> applied the “main purpose rule” and held that if a breach of policy conditions did not contribute to the risk involved, the insurer cannot refuse to indemnify the risk. The Court further reasoned that if it is evident that the accident was not caused by any fault of the driver, the carriage of additional passengers cannot be deemed to have influenced the occurrence of the accident. Therefore, the issue of a non-standard settlement did not arise.<\/p>\n

The “main purpose rule” was effectively sidelined when the Supreme Court legitimised non-standard settlements in Nitin Khandelwal case<\/span>14<\/sup><\/a>, where proportionate deductions for breach of policy conditions, although inconsequential, were allowed. Following this decision, the Ncdrc<\/span> consistently directed compromised settlements for such claims, basing their judgments on the claim settlement guidelines issued by the GIC, without taking into account the reasoning established in B.V. Nagaraju case<\/span>15<\/sup><\/a>. In one case, the Ncdrc<\/span> directed a non-standard settlement where a maxi-bus which was authorised to carry only 12+1 passengers, was found carrying 26 passengers.16<\/sup><\/a> This approach directly contradicts the observations made by the Supreme Court in B.V. Nagaraju case<\/span>17<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

The departure from the observations made in B.V. Nagaraju case<\/span>18<\/sup><\/a> demonstrates how the concept of non-standard settlement gradually evolved, ultimately superseding the main purpose rule. This evolution permits insurers to reduce the amount of an admissible claim, even when the breach of policy terms is insignificant. Conversely, it also allows the insured to recover a portion of the claim despite breaching the insurance contract.<\/p>\n

Breach Type 4 — Driver did not hold a valid driver’s licence<\/h4>\n

The requirement to hold a valid driver’s licence while operating a motor vehicle arises from both the insurance contract and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988<\/a>19<\/sup><\/a>. In a case where the insured vehicle was damaged by fire and the claim was denied because the driver lacked a valid licence, the Supreme Court ruled that if the absence of a valid licence had no impact on the fire that damaged the vehicle, the insurance company would have to settle the entire claim.20<\/sup><\/a> This decision effectively reaffirmed the rationale established in B.V. Nagaraju case<\/span>21<\/sup><\/a>, albeit without explicitly referencing it. The question of non-standard settlement has not been considered in this context.<\/p>\n

However, in the event of an accident where the driver was found to lack a valid driver’s licence, the Ncdrc<\/span> held that such a breach could not be overlooked by the insurance company, and no claim was payable, even on a non-standard basis. The absence of a valid licence is deemed fundamental to the cause of the loss, namely, the accident, and therefore, the claim was rightfully repudiated.22<\/sup><\/a> Thus, the question of non-standard settlement would not arise.<\/p>\n

Breach Type 5 — Vehicle was driven without valid registration<\/h4>\n

In cases where an unregistered vehicle is involved in an accident, the Supreme Court has ruled that non-registration is not only an offence under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act23<\/sup><\/a> but also constitutes a fundamental breach of the insurance contract. Based on this reasoning, the Supreme Court held that the insurer was entitled to repudiate the claim for such a fundamental breach of policy terms and the District Forum was found to have erred in directing the insurance company to settle the claim at 75% of the insured declared value (IDV).24<\/sup><\/a> Similarly, when a vehicle was stolen after being driven in violation of Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, the Supreme Court supported the complete repudiation of the claim, citing the fundamental breach of both legal and policy conditions.25<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

In instances of vehicle non-registration, non-standard settlements have been dismissed in cases involving both theft and accidents. However, the situation may differ if the vehicle is stolen from outside the insured’s residence without ever being driven on public roads. In such a scenario, there is no breach of policy terms or violation of the law, making the claim eligible for settlement on a standard basis.26<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Breach Type 6 — All reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle were not taken<\/h4>\n

When a condition to take all reasonable precautions to protect the insured vehicle is breached, it often leads the insurer to reject any resulting claim of loss. However, in a case where the vehicle owner had left the key in the ignition and abandoned the vehicle, which was then stolen, the Supreme Court ruled that the claim should be settled on a non-standard basis. The Court reasoned that leaving the key in the ignition does not constitute an invitation to theft and thus the claim should be resolved non-standardly.27<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h4>\n

The acceptance of non-standard settlement by consumer courts ensures that insurers do not reject claims on hypertechnical grounds by citing violations that have no impact on the loss itself. This is a highly pro-consumer development, safeguarding the interests of policy-holders who might otherwise be constrained to forfeit the entire claim amount due to minor infractions. However, the absence of clear guidelines on this concept has led to Consumer Court rulings being highly subjective, particularly in determining the quantum of deductions for specific violations.<\/p>\n

The core issue lies in the fact that despite the IRDA’s extensive regulatory oversight of the insurance sector, the practice of settling claims on a non-standard basis remains unregulated. This lack of regulation and oversight has allowed insurers to develop their own internal policies, resulting in inconsistent treatment of similar claims by different insurers. The deductions applied are often perceived as arbitrary, with insufficient transparency about the rationale for reducing the IDV.<\/p>\n

Non-standard settlements uphold the sanctity of a contract of insurance; however, it is crucial for the IRDA to address this issue by establishing clear guidelines and a comprehensive regulatory framework for reporting non-standard settlements. Regulating these settlements would ensure uniform treatment of similar claims and prevent arbitrary deductions by various insurers.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

*Senior Associate, Magnus Legal Services LLP. Author can be reached at: chandorkarnamrata@gmail.com<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/a> 2000 SCC OnLine NCDRC 8<\/a><\/p>\n

2.<\/a> (2008) 11 SCC 259.<\/a><\/p>\n

3.<\/a> Amalendu Sahoo<\/span> v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span>, (2010) 4 SCC 536.<\/a><\/p>\n

4.<\/a> New India Assurance Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Trilochan Jane<\/span>, 2009 SCC OnLine NCDRC 201.<\/a><\/p>\n

5.<\/a> (2018) 9 SCC 798.<\/a><\/p>\n

6.<\/a> Gurshinder Singh<\/span> v. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span>, (2020) 11 SCC 612.<\/a><\/p>\n

7.<\/a> Circular dated 20-9-2011 issued by the IRDA bearing Ref. No. IRDA\/HLTH\/MISC\/CIR\/216\/09\/2011.<\/p>\n

8.<\/a> New India Assurance Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Dharam Singh<\/span>, 2006 SCC OnLine NCDRC 39<\/a>; New India Assurance Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Trilochan Jane<\/span>, 2009 SCC OnLine NCDRC 201<\/a>; and HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Bhagchand Saini<\/span>, 2014 SCC OnLine NCDRC 874<\/a>.<\/p>\n

9.<\/a> 2019 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1097.<\/a><\/p>\n

10.<\/a> (2010) 4 SCC 536.<\/a><\/p>\n

11.<\/a> Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Brahmanand Javvadi<\/span>, 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 456<\/a>; Ram Kumar<\/span> v. IFFCO Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine NCDRC 26.<\/a><\/p>\n

12.<\/a> National Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Premaji Babuji Oad<\/span>, (2024) 3 CPR 145.<\/p>\n

13.<\/a> (1996) 4 SCC 647.<\/a><\/p>\n

14.<\/a> (2008) 11 SCC 259.<\/a><\/p>\n

15.<\/a> (1996) 4 SCC 647.<\/a><\/p>\n

16.<\/a> New India Assurance Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Narayan Prasad Appaprasad Pathak<\/span>, 2006 SCC OnLine NCDRC 87.<\/a><\/p>\n

17.<\/a> (1996) 4 SCC 647.<\/a><\/p>\n

18.<\/a> (1996) 4 SCC 647.<\/a><\/p>\n

19.<\/a> Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.<\/a><\/p>\n

20.<\/a> Jitendra Kumar<\/span> v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span>, (2003) 6 SCC 420.<\/a><\/p>\n

21.<\/a> (1996) 4 SCC 647.<\/a><\/p>\n

22.<\/a> Jahid Khan<\/span> v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span>, 2012 SCC OnLine NCDRC 531.<\/a><\/p>\n

23.<\/a> Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S. 192.<\/a><\/p>\n

24.<\/a> Narinder Singh<\/span> v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.<\/span>, (2014) 9 SCC 324.<\/a><\/p>\n

25.<\/a> United India Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Sushil Kumar Godara<\/span>, (2021) 14 SCC 519.<\/a><\/p>\n

26.<\/a> Nazia Hassan<\/span> v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/span>, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 5589<\/a>; New India Assurance Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. Ashok Kumar Sachdeva<\/span>, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 6079.<\/a><\/p>\n

27.<\/a> Ashok Kumar<\/span> v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.<\/span>, (2024) 1 SCC 357.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Namrata Chandorkar*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":333009,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[11241,74040,74044,74043,28694,74041,74042],"class_list":["post-333008","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-consumer-protection","tag-deciphering-non-standard-settlement","tag-general-insurance-corporation","tag-insurance-regulatory-and-development-authority","tag-irda","tag-motor-insurance-claims","tag-standard-claim"],"yoast_head":"\nConsumer Protection | Deciphering Non-Standard Settlement of Motor Insurance Claims | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Typically, in motor insurance, a \u201cstandard claim\u201d arises when there is no violation of policy conditions and a loss occurs. Conversely\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/15\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Consumer Protection | Deciphering Non-Standard Settlement of Motor Insurance Claims\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Typically, in motor insurance, a \u201cstandard claim\u201d arises when there is no violation of policy conditions and a loss occurs. Conversely\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/15\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-10-15T03:30:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Consumer-Protection.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Consumer Protection | Deciphering Non-Standard Settlement of Motor Insurance Claims\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/15\\\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/15\\\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"headline\":\"Consumer Protection | Deciphering Non-Standard Settlement of Motor Insurance Claims\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-10-15T03:30:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/15\\\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2311,\"commentCount\":1,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/15\\\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/Consumer-Protection.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"consumer protection\",\"Deciphering Non-Standard Settlement\",\"General Insurance Corporation\",\"Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority\",\"IRDA\",\"Motor Insurance Claims\",\"standard claim\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Op Eds\",\"OP. ED.\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/15\\\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/15\\\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/15\\\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\\\/\",\"name\":\"Consumer Protection | Deciphering Non-Standard Settlement of Motor Insurance Claims | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/15\\\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/15\\\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/Consumer-Protection.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-10-15T03:30:53+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"description\":\"Typically, in motor insurance, a \u201cstandard claim\u201d arises when there is no violation of policy conditions and a loss occurs. Conversely\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/15\\\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/15\\\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/15\\\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/Consumer-Protection.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/Consumer-Protection.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Consumer Protection\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/15\\\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Consumer Protection | Deciphering Non-Standard Settlement of Motor Insurance Claims\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_1\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Consumer Protection | Deciphering Non-Standard Settlement of Motor Insurance Claims | SCC Times","description":"Typically, in motor insurance, a \u201cstandard claim\u201d arises when there is no violation of policy conditions and a loss occurs. Conversely","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/15\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Consumer Protection | Deciphering Non-Standard Settlement of Motor Insurance Claims","og_description":"Typically, in motor insurance, a \u201cstandard claim\u201d arises when there is no violation of policy conditions and a loss occurs. Conversely","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/15\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-10-15T03:30:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Consumer-Protection.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Consumer Protection | Deciphering Non-Standard Settlement of Motor Insurance Claims","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/15\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/15\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\/"},"author":{"name":"Bhumika Indulia","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"headline":"Consumer Protection | Deciphering Non-Standard Settlement of Motor Insurance Claims","datePublished":"2024-10-15T03:30:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/15\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\/"},"wordCount":2311,"commentCount":1,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/15\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Consumer-Protection.webp","keywords":["consumer protection","Deciphering Non-Standard Settlement","General Insurance Corporation","Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority","IRDA","Motor Insurance Claims","standard claim"],"articleSection":["Op Eds","OP. ED."],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/15\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/15\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/15\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\/","name":"Consumer Protection | Deciphering Non-Standard Settlement of Motor Insurance Claims | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/15\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/15\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Consumer-Protection.webp","datePublished":"2024-10-15T03:30:53+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"description":"Typically, in motor insurance, a \u201cstandard claim\u201d arises when there is no violation of policy conditions and a loss occurs. Conversely","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/15\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/15\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/15\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Consumer-Protection.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Consumer-Protection.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Consumer Protection"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/15\/consumer-protection-deciphering-non-standard-settlement-of-motor-insurance-claims\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Consumer Protection | Deciphering Non-Standard Settlement of Motor Insurance Claims"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Consumer-Protection.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":242633,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/22\/ncdrc-what-factors-are-to-be-considered-to-ascertain-whether-a-discharge-voucher-in-full-and-final-settlement-was-signed-voluntarily-or-undue-influence-commission-considers\/","url_meta":{"origin":333008,"position":0},"title":"NCDRC | What factors are to be considered to ascertain whether a discharge voucher in full and final settlement was signed voluntarily or undue influence? Commission considers","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 22, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): C. Viswanath (Presiding Member) observed that: \u201cConduct of the insured becomes relevant on the facts of each case to ascertain whether the discharge voucher in the full and final settlement was given\u00a0 voluntarily or there was coercion or undue influence on the Complainant.\u201d The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":236808,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/06\/bom-hc-diverges-from-madras-karnataka-hcs-view-on-whether-mact-has-jurisdiction-over-personal-accident-claims-or-not-read-the-proposition\/","url_meta":{"origin":333008,"position":1},"title":"Bom HC diverges from Madras & Karnataka HC’s view on whether MACT has jurisdiction over personal accident claims or not: Read the proposition","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 6, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court:\u00a0S.M. Modak, J., examined the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in regard to claim made by the insured\/owner under a personal accident claim against the insurance company. Liability of Insurance Company The circumstance involved in the present appeal about the liability of the insurance company to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":243644,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/10\/ncdrc-if-an-employee-of-a-stockbroker-conducted-fraudulent-arbitrage-operations-for-personal-benefit-causing-loss-to-stockbroker-company-would-that-be-covered-under-fidelity-claus\/","url_meta":{"origin":333008,"position":2},"title":"NCDRC | If an employee of a stockbroker conducted fraudulent arbitrage operations for personal benefit causing loss to stockbroker company, would that be covered under \u2018Fidelity\u2019 clause of an insurance claim? Read on","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 10, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): The Division Bench of Justice R.K. Agrawal (President) and Dr S.M. Kantikar (Member) while partly allowing the complaint expressed that the surveyors of the insurance company adopted a conservative approach and kept demanding for information without any further clarification. Complainant filed the instant complaint\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":240747,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/16\/ncdrc-if-a-car-gets-stolen-while-being-insured-but-temporary-registration-of-car-get-expires-can-insurance-company-escape-from-its-liability-of-indemnifying-loss-commission-decides\/","url_meta":{"origin":333008,"position":3},"title":"NCDRC | If a car is stolen while being insured but temporary registration of car expires, can Insurance company escape from its liability of indemnifying loss? Commission decides","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 16, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC):\u00a0C. Vishwanath (Presiding Member), held that since the Insurance Company itself insured the complainant\u2019s vehicle and the vehicle had been stolen during the currency of the Policy and the Police were informed immediately, the Insurance Company could not repudiate the claim. The instant revision petition\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":271341,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/06\/ncdrc-points-of-law-regarding-limitation-and-consumer-should-not-be-raised-in-revision-just-for-the-sake-of-prolonging-a-case\/","url_meta":{"origin":333008,"position":4},"title":"NCDRC| Points of law regarding ‘limitation’ and ‘consumer’ should not be raised in revision just for the sake of prolonging a case","author":"Editor","date":"August 6, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\"The purpose of looking into the records of the lower fora in revision is principally to see whether any jurisdictional error or material irregularity has been committed, which has to be judged by seeing their orders in the light of the evidence and material placed before them i.e., the material\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6382,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/02\/18\/repudiation-of-claim-on-ground-that-complainant-failed-to-prove-that-cause-of-death-was-a-result-of-accidental-injuries-upheld\/","url_meta":{"origin":333008,"position":5},"title":"Repudiation of claim on ground that complainant failed to prove that cause of death was a result of accidental injuries, upheld","author":"Sucheta","date":"February 18, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): NCDRC has upheld a repudiation of claim by an insurance company on the ground that complainant failed to prove that the cause of death of the insured was the injury caused by the accident. Earlier, complainant\u2019s mother obtained insurance cover from HDFC Ergo General\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Tribunals\/Commissions\/Regulatory Bodies"","block_context":{"text":"Tribunals\/Commissions\/Regulatory Bodies","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/333008","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=333008"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/333008\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/333009"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=333008"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=333008"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=333008"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}