Bihar

Gaya

CC/59/2017

Gulabi Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ajay Kumar Singh

05 Dec 2018

ORDER

In the court of District Consumer Forum, Gaya

Consumer Complainant Case No.-59 of 2017

Gulabi Devi.... Complainant.

                                 V/S
Managing Director, 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:- 12.12.2018                Shri Ramesh Chandra Singh..... President.

Order

The instant case has been filed by the complainant Gulabi Devi against the Managing Director, Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited and others for deficiency in service as they have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the basis that the stolen vehicle was being used as commercial purpose whereas it was insured as private vehicle

                                                Case No.-59-2017

without any  reasonable reason and arbitrarily and she has claimed the sum assured ₹5,45, valid from 28 February

                                                 Case No.-59-2017

                         3. The opposite parties appeared before the court and filed a written statement jointly mentioning therein that the insured vehicle was being used for hire and reward purpose which was revealed by the investigation conducted by Debajit Chakraborty because of fact that as per Sale Invoice dated 27 February

                              4. In support of their cases both parties have evidences on affidavit and also relevant documents.

                         The Complainant has filed xerox copy of certificate of registration, certificate of insurance, copy of FIR, Charge sheet, 

                                                Case No.-59-2017

Fardbayan, claim form, declaration form, repudiate letter and the opposite parties have filed investigation report of De bahut Chakraborty and xerox copy of vehicle order taking form.

                                 5. In this case almost all the facts are admitted except the use of the vehicle at the time of its theft.

The claim of the complainant has been repudiated only on the basis that the vehicle was being used as commercial purpose where is it was insured as private vehicle.

The reasons mentioned in the Investigation Report of  Devajit Chakraborty  are that as per local people the vehicle was purchased by the insured for business purpose only, the economic status does not match with this and it is fact that the insured used as vehicle under fire and reward regularly ,during his investigation he has gathered the witness as well as the written statement from the insured where is she admitted that the vehicle was purchased by her for business purpose and  her vehicle was being plied on  hire and reward basis regularly.

                                                 Case No.-59-2017

The opposite parties have not submitted any supporting evidences which would show that the investigating agency has taken any evidences of any local people to show that the insured had purchased the stolen vehicle for purpose of business only and it is not reasonable to arrive at a conclusion that the vehicle was plied for hire and reward on the basis of a statement that the vehicle was plied over

                                                Case No.-59-2017

we, therefore, direct the opposite parties to pay  the complainant ₹5,45,

     Dictated and corrected

Female Member          Male Member                    President

Sunita Kumari                  Syed Mohtashim Akhtar        Ramesh Chandra Singh