CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/415/2018

          Date of Institution:-    04.10.2018

          Order Reserved on:- 24.07.2024

                    Date of Decision:-      06.11.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ms. Tania Handa

R/o 110/1D Gali No.12, West Azad Nagar,

Krishna Nagar, Delhi - 110051

                                                                                       .….. Complainant

VERSUS

IFFCO TokiaGeneral Insurance Co. Ltd.

Having its Head Officeat IFFCO Towers,

4^th 5^th Floor, Plot No.3, Sector 29,

Gurgaon 122001, Haryana

Also having its claim servicing office at

Unit no A & B4, 3^rd Floor, TDI Center,

Jasola, New Delhi - 110025

   …..Opposite Party

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thatshe is owner of car bearing registration no.DL10CF5059 which is duly insured vide policy no.64135638 valid from 14.05.2017 – 13.05.2018 with OP. On 30.11.2017, the vehicle met with an accident and claim no.37304478 was registered with OP. The damages to the tune of Rs.2,90,000/- was sustained and estimate with bills was submitted with OP. A letter dated 21.03.2018 was received vide which claim was rejected on the flimsy ground that her father was running a transport company and duty slips of the same company were found in the vehicle and car was being used for commercial purposes. The allegation of use of car for commercial purposes is wrong and without any basis. There is no justifiable reason to reject the claim. Hence, this complaint.

2. The OP has filed the reply with the averments that complainant has not supplied copy of FIR, injury/post-mortem report or any other document to prove the accident. The claim of Rs.2,90,000/- is not supported by any document as estimate of damage is not clear. It is not clear which part was damaged and what is the repairing cost of each part. The material collected by independent agency shows that vehicle was used for commercial purposes. The documentary proof was found in the vehicle. The vehicle is registered as a private vehicle but used for commercial purposes. The duty slips were issued by Tanya Travel Line in favour of Eco Affair for the vehicle in question and driver Gaurav Sharma was deputed for vehicle in question. The duty slip entries are like this.

3. The complainant has breached section 3 (a) of the General Exceptions to the policy. The blood skins were found on the rear seat showing that passengers were sitting on the rear seat who were injured. The claim form shows that only driver was in the vehicle but as per visible damage to the driver and co-driver seat back portion indicates that passengers were sitting on the rare seat. The damage to the frond wind screen for the inner portion indicates that passengers were sitting on the co-driver seat. The complainant has done misrepresentation by concealing the material facts which is the breach of utmost good faith of the insurance contract. The claim has been rightly rejected. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.

4. The complainant has filed the rejoinder wherein she has reiterated the stand taken in the complaint and denied the averments made in the written statements.

5. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.

6. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents Ex.CW1/1 to CW1/3.

7. The OP has filed the affidavit ofMs.GurvinderKaur, in evidence and corroborated the version of written statement and placed reliance on the documents Annexure R-1 to R-4.

8. We haveheard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and perused the entire material on record.

9. It is clear from the evidence on record that complainant is registered owner of vehicle in question which is duly insured with OP.

10. On 30.11.2017Gaurav Sharma was driving the vehicle in question and reached at 11.30PM near gate no.35RashtrapatiBhawan, New Delhi where he tried to save the stray dogs and in that attempt vehicle hit against the divider causing injuries to the Gaurav Sharma and damage on the front of the vehicle. The claim was lodged by the complainant upon which the surveyor was appointed and surveyor gave the report in the form of summary of the claim Annecure-R1& R2.

11. The policy in question is for private vehicle. The surveyor report shows that car in question was used for commercial purposes as duty slips issued by Tania Travel Lines was issued in favour of Eco affair. The duty slips are in the favour of driver Gaurav Sharma. The duty slips are annexed with Annexure-R2 i.e. surveyor and loss accessor report. The complainant has failed to explain why the duty slip allegedly issued by Tania Travel Lines were found in the car in question. The complainant has failed to explain how Gaurav Sharma was driving the car in question. It is not the case of the complainant that car in question was used to earn her livelihood andGauravSharma was her personal driver or that Gaurav Sharma has nothing to do with Tania Travel Lines. The duty slips clearly shows that car was used for commercial purposes by Tania Travel Lines and Gaurav Sharma was driving the car as a driver on duty. No contrary evidence has been led by the complainant to controvert all these documents collected by the OP.

12. The surveyor of the OP has seen presence of blood stains on the rear seat of the car in question which allegedly indicates that passengers were sitting in the car. There is no contrary evidence that no blood skins were found in the car.
13. The complainant has filed estimate Ex.CW1/2 issued by Harpreet Motors Pvt. Ltd. nowhere shows that estimate of Rs.2.9 lakh was given by the service station after assessing the damage in the car in question. The complainant has failed to explain how the repairing cost of Rs.2.9 lakh was assessed when no bill is placed on record.

14. The OP has banked upon the surveyor and assessor loss report coupled with summary of claim Annexure-R1 and R2. There is no evidence on record from the side of complainant to view the said reports with the aid of spectacles. No contrary evidence is led by the complainant so the reports Annexure-R1 and R2 filed by the OP are relied upon.

15. The complainant has failed to bring any evidence on record that claim has been wrongly rejected by the OP thereby leading to deficiency of service. The OP has rightly rejected the claim.

16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 06.11.2024.