STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No. 31 of 2020

Birendra Kumar, S/o- Bhola Mahto, Muzaffarpur

                                                                                                        .… Appellant

Versus

1.  Chief Managing Director, Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company Ltd. DARE HOUSE, 2^nd Floor, N.S.C Bose Road, Chennai- 600001

                                                                                                                                                                            …. Respondent No. 1

2.  Branch Manager (Claim), Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company Ltd. Daya Complex, Holding No. 225 A, Ward No. 29, Gannipur, Kalambagh Road, Aghoria Bazar Chowk, Muzaffarpur-842

                                                                                                                                                                     …. Respondent No. 2

3.  General Manager (Claim), Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company Ltd. 3^rd Floor, I-B Complex, In Front of Hotel Lalita, Boring Canal Road, Patna-

                                                                                                                                                                      …. Respondent No. 3

Counsel for the appellant: Adv. Sanjay Singh Thakur

Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. R.C. Narayan

Before,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President

Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member

Dated 01.02.2023

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

Present appeal has been filed on behalf of appellant/complainant for setting aside order dated 04.01.2020 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Froum, Muzaffarpur in Consumer Complaint no. 76 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the learned District Consumer Forum has dismissed the complaint case filed by complainant.

          Briefly stated the facts of the case is that complainant purchased a Bolero Pickup bearing Registration no. BR-06G-8588 for his livelihood and same was duly insured by respondents/opposite parties Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company for the period from 31.12.2014 to 30.12.2015 for sum assured amout of Rs. 4,00,000/-.

          It is further submitted by the complainant that due to ill health, he entered into a lease agreement for 11 months i.e 17.11.2014 to 16.10.2015 with one Rahul Kumar for leasing vehicle on payment of monthly rental of Rs. 15,000/-. The monthly salary of the driver and all other taxes and insurance premium was to be paid by the complainant.

          On 12.02.2015 while vehicle was returning from Sitamarhi to Muzaffarpur,  driver of the vehicle parked the vehicle and went to take breakfast and when he returned back, he found the vehicle to have been stolen for which FIR being Runni Saidpur PS case no. 71 of 2015 was instituted and after investigation the police submitted final report in which theft of the vehicle was found to be true and final report was accepted by the CJM, Sitamarhi.

          Insurance company was also informed about the theft of the vehicle immediately who appointed investigator to enquire about the incident of theft who compelled to petitioner to write that the vehicle was sold to Rahul Kumar and only then his claim can be settled and accordingly he wrote that the vehicle was sold to Rahul Kumar, although, in ownership as well as insurance documents complainant was the owner of the vehicle.  However, the insurance company by letter dated 30.06.2015 repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that vehicle was sold by complainant against which complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarpur for payment of sum assured amount by the insurance company.

          Notices were issued to the insurance company and they appeared and filed their written statement stating therein the claim of complainant was repudiated on the ground that vehicle has been sold by the complainant to one Rahul Kumar. It was further stated that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose as such complainant is not a consumer.

          The District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarpur dismissed the complaint case on the ground that no driving license has been produced on behalf of the complainant and as such it was violation of terms and condition of insurance policy. The complainant has also violated the terms of insurance by letting out the vehicle for commercial purpose.

Heard counsel for the parties.

 It is now well settled preposition of law (i)  that a contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and therefore, there is no question of commercial purpose in obtaining insurance coverage. (ii). In case of theft of vehicle nature of use of vehicle can not be looked into and the insurance company can not repudiate the claim on that basis.

Insurance company has repudiated the claim on sole ground that complainant has sold the vehicle as such he has no insurable claim. However, from the record it appears that claimant is registered owner in the registration certificate and insurance policy also runs in his name.  In other documents also claimant is the registered owner of the vehicle as such the reason for repudiation of the claim of complainant is nonest and nonexistent  and as such order of repudiation dated 30.06.2015 is  quashed.

In said view of the matter, the judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is not sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly is set aside and the case is remanded to the District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarpur to be decided on its merit.

(Ram Prawesh Das)                                                                         (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                                                            President

Md. Fariduzzama