In the court of District Consumer Forum, Gaya

Consumer Complainant Case No.-35 of 2014

Santosh kumar gupta......Complaintant

                                   V/s
M/s Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company limited and another ....... Opposite Parties.

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

 2. Syed Mohtashim Akhtar....Male Member

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

Dated:- 06.02.

                                  1. The instant case has been filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties for deficiency in service as the Opposite Parties have not settled the Claim of the Complainant and demanded ₹4,14,

 (2)                  Case No.-35-2014

                                   2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is owner of   a Bolero Jeep , Reg number JH 02S

                                       (3)              Case No.-35-2014

                                 3. On notice Opposite Party number 1 and 2 appeared but only Opposite Party number 1 filed written statement but the Opposite Party No.2 debarred by filing written statement.
                                4. In written statement it has been stated that the complainant had taken a private car package policy. The car met with an accident on 29 December

                                5. Both parties have filed their evidences on affidavits and relevant documents.

                                6. The point of determination before the court is whether there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as sought for.

                                      (4)               Case No.-35-2014

                                  7. It appears from perusal of evidences on affidavit of both parties that all facts are admitted except that the vehicle was being used on hire at the time of accident. The certificate of insurance and policy schedule also discloses that the car was insured under, private car package policy'. The complainant has denied the vehicle in question being used on hire at the time of accident. It appears from FIR (Kudu P.S Case No.3/

                                    (5)                 Case No.-35-2014

at on conclusion that the vehicle was being used on hire at the time of accident.

                                8. In the situation when the vehicle is insured under private car package and is being used on hire what damage should be awarded to the complainant, a case decided by the Honorable Apex court   is relevant. In case of Amalendu Sahoo vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited({

Description % of Settlement.................................
1.Under declaration of licensed carrying capacity- deduct 3 years difference in premium from the amount of claim or deduct 25% of claim amount, whichever is higher.

                                         (6)            Case No.-35-2014

2. Overloading of vehicle beyond licenced carrying capacity -Pay claims not exceeding 75% of admissible claim
3. Any other breach of warranty / condition of policy including limitation as to use- Pay up to 75% of admissible claim.

The Honorable Court in the instant situation of case where the vehicle was used for hire awarded a consolidated sum of Since in the instant case the situation is same we are of the opinion that in the light of decision of The Honorable Apex Court the opposite party should pay ₹2, Hence, the opposite party number 1 is directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant within 2 months from the date of order of his Court failing which the complainant will be entitled to get interest at rate of 8% per annum on the amount not paid till the actual payment and the complainant will also be entitled to realize the aforesaid amount through process of court.

       Dictated and corrected

Female Member          Male Member                    President

Sunita Kumari                    Syed Mohtashim Akhtar       Ramesh Chandra Singh

In the court of District Consumer Forum, Gaya

Consumer Complainant Case No.-35 of 2014

Santosh kumar gupta......Complaintant

                                   V/s
M/s Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company limited and another ....... Opposite Parties.

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

 2. Syed Mohtashim Akhtar....Male Member

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

Dated:- 06.02.

                                  1. The instant case has been filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties for deficiency in service as the Opposite Parties have not settled the Claim of the Complainant and demanded ₹4,14,

 (2)                  Case No.-35-2014

                                   2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is owner of   a Bolero Jeep , Reg number JH 02S

                                       (3)              Case No.-35-2014

                                 3. On notice Opposite Party number 1 and 2 appeared but only Opposite Party number 1 filed written statement but the Opposite Party No.2 debarred by filing written statement.
                                4. In written statement it has been stated that the complainant had taken a private car package policy. The car met with an accident on 29 December

                                5. Both parties have filed their evidences on affidavits and relevant documents.

                                6. The point of determination before the court is whether there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as sought for.

                                      (4)               Case No.-35-2014

                                  7. It appears from perusal of evidences on affidavit of both parties that all facts are admitted except that the vehicle was being used on hire at the time of accident. The certificate of insurance and policy schedule also discloses that the car was insured under, private car package policy'. The complainant has denied the vehicle in question being used on hire at the time of accident. It appears from FIR (Kudu P.S Case No.3/

                                    (5)                 Case No.-35-2014

at on conclusion that the vehicle was being used on hire at the time of accident.

                                8. In the situation when the vehicle is insured under private car package and is being used on hire what damage should be awarded to the complainant, a case decided by the Honorable Apex court   is relevant. In case of Amalendu Sahoo vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited({

Description % of Settlement.................................
1.Under declaration of licensed carrying capacity- deduct 3 years difference in premium from the amount of claim or deduct 25% of claim amount, whichever is higher.

                                         (6)            Case No.-35-2014

2. Overloading of vehicle beyond licenced carrying capacity -Pay claims not exceeding 75% of admissible claim
3. Any other breach of warranty / condition of policy including limitation as to use- Pay up to 75% of admissible claim.

The Honorable Court in the instant situation of case where the vehicle was used for hire awarded a consolidated sum of Since in the instant case the situation is same we are of the opinion that in the light of decision of The Honorable Apex Court the opposite party should pay ₹2, Hence, the opposite party number 1 is directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant within 2 months from the date of order of his Court failing which the complainant will be entitled to get interest at rate of 8% per annum on the amount not paid till the actual payment and the complainant will also be entitled to realize the aforesaid amount through process of court.

       Dictated and corrected

Female Member          Male Member                    President

Sunita Kumari                    Syed Mohtashim Akhtar       Ramesh Chandra Singh