ORDER

10.10.2017

Upendra Jha  Member (M)   

                               This appeal is preferred against the order dated 7.09.2016 passed by the District Forum, Gaya  in complaint case no. 01/2016 by which the complaint has been dismissed.

 2.                   Briefly stated the case is that the appellant purchased  a Bolaro vehicle financed by  Cholamandlam  investment  finance company Ltd.  Gaya in 2013 for his person  use  and it was insured by the respondent- opposite party for  Rs. 5,52368/- on 22.11.2013. This vehicle was stolen on 02.03.2014. F.I.R was lodged in Gaya Muffasel on 02.03.2014 u/s 379 of IPC.  Information was given to the opposite party insurance company. The  police submitted final form on 31.05.2014 stating the theft  true which was accepted by the C.J.M Gaya. The appellant  complainant  filed claim with relevant documents before  the Insurance company but it was not settled and repudiated vide it letter dated 03.11.2015. Then, a complaint  was filed  before the District Forum Gaya. The  opposite parties contested  the case. The District Forum passed  the impugned order against which this appeal is preferred.

3.        Respective written notes of arguments have been filed by the parties. Heard.          

4. District Forum has not found any deficiency  in service  on the part of the opposite party- respondent  as this vehicle was being  used  for commercial purpose and has violated the terms of policy. Hence, the complaint was dismissed.    

 5.       The counsel for the appellant submits that the vehicle was  by the  complainant  to drop Kids  to school on the way of going  to office and it was never  used for commercial  purpose and has not violated  the terms  of policy. The  opposite parties  have not proved this allegations that it was being used for commercial purpose.  No evidence  on affidavit to prove the allegation.  The appellant is entitled to get the full insurance amount with compensation and litigation cost. The District Forum order is not sustainable. It is fit to be set aside.

6.        The counsel for the respondents Insurance company submit that the vehicle was being used for commercial  purpose and it has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The  District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint. It needs no interference. The appeal is fit to be dismissed.   

7.        Having considering the submissions of parties and on perusal  of the order passed by the District Forum it appears  that the District Forum has not followed  the procedures under section 13 of the Consumer protection Act 1986  and has not adduced  any evidence  to substantiate  the allegation.  There is not dispute that the insured vehicle of appellant was stolen away when  it was perused near his house.  There is only dispute that the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes whereas it was registered for private purposes. There is violation of terms  and conditions of policy. In this connection there is decision   of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case  of new India Insurance company Vs. Nitin  Khandelwal. In the light of this decision, the District Forum should  had to consider the case.  But, the forum without establishing the case has passed the impugned order. Hence, the District Forum  order is set aside  and the appeal is allowed  and remanded to the District Forum for first hearing  for adducing evidence on affidavit and for passing a reasoned order within 3 months from the receipt  of this order. The appeal is allowed.

S.K. Sinha                                                                 Upendra Jha

President                                                                    Member(M)

           Mukund