Delhi

New Delhi

CC/176/2015

Jagir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

08 Mar 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTRICT NEW DELHI,  M-BLOCK, 1^ST FLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE. NEW DELHI-1100001.

 

C.C.No.176-15

 

Sh. Jagir Singh,

S/o Sh. Geja Singh,

R/o A-5, Panchsheel Vihar,

1^st Floor, Khirkee Extension,

New Delhi.

 …..Complainant

                Vs.

 

The Branch Manager,

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Regional Office-1,

F-20,  Connaught Circus,

New Delhi-110001.

 

......Opposite Party

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 

O R D E R

 

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P. under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.DL 3C AC1653 duly insured  with OP vide policy bearing No.214501/31/2007/2195 for the insured determined value (IDV)  of Rs.2,12,000/- for the period 17.3.2007 to 16.3.2008.  On 12.5.2007,  the vehicle in question met with an accident,  driver of the alleged vehicle died on the spot and the vehicle was totally damaged.  FIR  was registered at police station Iani Meerut vide DD No.48 dated 12.5.2007.  Further, the complainant filed a claim of the said vehicle but the same was repudiated on the ground that “the vehicle was alleged to have been used as commercial being a private one which is in violation to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy”.  Further, the complainant filed a complaint with the Insurance Ombudsman against the Insurance Co. but the same was also rejected, hence this complaint.

2.     Complaint has been contested by the OP.  In its written statement O.P has not disputed that complainant had taken policy referred above. OP stated that the as per surveyor report the insured vehicle was running as a Taxi for commercial use at the time of accident  while the vehicle was registered and insured for private use.  The complainant has himself admitted in its letter to the OP that the insured vehicle was being used as Taxi.  It is stated that the OP also got the alleged vehicle surveyed for assessing loss through surveyor, the surveyor  assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.1,71,500/- on total loss basis subject to admissibility of claim under the policy of insurance, The insured vehicle was used as commercial purposed at the time of alleged accident,  hence, the claim was repudiated being not admissible under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.   It is further stated that the claim of the complainant was duly processed and thereafter, the OP Co. took the decision to repudiate the claim on the basis of material evidence on record.  As such, the claim was rightly repudiated by OP Insurance Co.

3.     Both  the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit.  

4.     We have heard arguments advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

5.     Some facts are not denied by the parties such as the policy documents, accident,  loss of the vehicle assessed by the surveyor of the OP Co.  It is argued on behalf of OP that the vehicle was insured as private car and was being used as a taxi.  The vehicle insured in question was being used otherwise than in accordance with the “limitation as to use”.  As per  terms and conditions of the policy, the claim of the complainant falls within General Exception 3-A of the policy, as such the claim was rightly repudiated by OP Insurance Co.

6.     It is argued on behalf of the complainant that the claim of the complainant was  rejected  vide letter dated 24.9.2007 on false and frivolous ground that the complainant was using the vehicle for commercial purpose i.e. taxi.  It is further argued that the vehicle in question was given to the neighbourer Mr. D.D. Verma in friendly way and nothing has been charged from him.  The surveyor has written the report in English which the complainant failed to understand and he signed the same.  The vehicle in question was never used as taxi as alleged by the OP, even the OP has failed to place on record the statement of any passenger who alleged to have hired the vehicle and further prayed that  as the premium was paid by the complainant he was entitled for the reimbursement of his claim. 

7.     Perusal of the letter dated 6.7.2007 written by the complainant to the OP Insurance Co. clearly shows that the complainant has used the vehicle as a taxi.  He has stated in the above letter that he has sent the vehicle in question with the passenger as taxi by taking Rs.6/-per KM. without AC.  He further stated that the alleged vehicle was running as a taxi at the time of accident.  The bare reading of the above letter depicts that the vehicle is used for commercial purpose, otherwise than in accordance with the “limitation as to use”.  As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the claim of the complainant falls within General Exception 3-A of the policy, as such the claim was rightly repudiated by OP Insurance Co.

8.     In view of the above discussion and documents placed on record by the complainant, we are of the opinion that the repudiation of the claim by the OP Insurance Co.  was justified.  We find no merits in the present complaint, therefore, same is hereby dismissed.

This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

Announced in open Forum on 08/03/2019. 

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                MEMBER