Bihar

Gaya

CC/54/2016

Amrendra Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Subodh Kumar

15 Sep 2018

ORDER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the court of District Consumer Forum, Gaya

Consumer Complainant Case No. - 54 of 2016

Amrendra Kumar..... Complainant

                                    V/S
Branch Manager, Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited and others…..Opposite Parties.

Present:
 1. Shri Ramesh Chandra Singh..... President

 2. Syed Mohtashim Akhtar....Male Member

 3. Smt. Sunita Kumari ....Female Member

Dated:- 15.09.

ORDER

The instant case has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties for deficiency in service as the opposite parties have repudiated his claim without justification and prayed to pay policy amount of the vehicle ₹

 

                                                     Case No. - 54 of 2016

 

 

                             2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchase a Bolero vehicle , Registration No.BR02P8.12.2014. On registered. The police submitted Final Form which was accepted by the C.J.M, Patna. The Complainant preferred a claim No.UPclaim. He sent legal notice but reply has been not received as yet. It is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Complainant has suffered mental aginy and physical harassment.
                         3. Opposite party number 1, 2 and 3 appeared and filed their joint written statement mentioning therein that policy for vehicle in question was taken by the complainant under private car package policy. It was revealed by the Debojit Chakraborty, the investigator of the case that the vehicle was being used for hire and

 

                                                     Case No. - 54 of 2016

 

 

reward at the time of theft. As per the investigator the complainant had rented the vehicle to one Vikas Sharma for the purpose of visit to doctor Manju Geeta Sharma Hospital in Patna. Hence, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite parties.

                           4. Point of decision before this Court is weather the complainant is entitled to get relief as sought for.

                           5. Almost all facts are admitted except the point whether the theft vehicle was being plied at the time of theft.

                           6. In support of their cases   both parties have filed their evidences on affidavit and other documents including the investigation report of Devajit Chakraborty.

                            7. Debajit Chakraborty in his investigation report mentioned that as per his investigation report theft seems to be apparently genuine but as the insured was plying his private vehicle under hire and rent at the time of theft which attracts exclusion point number 1 as per policy condition and the insured claim is there by not admissible. The investigation report is based on the written statement made by Amrendra Kumar who has stated that he hired the said vehicle for treatment of her wife and went to Patna.

 

                                                Case No. - 54 of 2016

 

 

After perusal of evidences adduced by both parties on affidavits and documents filed by them and also considering all the other aspects available on case record we came on the conclusion that the vehicle was being plied at the time of theft on hire and rent basis.

                          8. Now that question arises when the vehicle was being plied at the time of theft on rent and hire basis what remedy should be given to the Complainant.

                          9. In this regard case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Nitin Khandelwal decided in Apple number

The Honorable Apex court did not interfere the decision the of the Honorable National Commission and the Honorable State Commission.

 

                                                Case No. - 54 of 2016

 

 

                          10. Hence, in our options the Complainant under such circumstances is entitled to get 75% of insured amount ₹ payment. The complainant will be also entitled to get realize the aforementioned amount through process of court in case of nonpayment.

                     Dictated and corrected

 

Female Member     Male Member                      President

Sunita Kumari          Syed Mohtashim Akhtar     Ramesh Chandra Singh