CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.172/2020
SH. HARWINDER SINGH
SHOP NO. 27 L.S.C, FIRST FLOOR,
DDA COMPLEX,
MADANGIRI, NEW DELHI …..COMPLAINANT
M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY PVT. LTD.
SERVICE CENTRE (DRO-1),
HANSALAYA BUILDING, 15,
BARAKAMBHA ROAD,
NEW DELHI 110001
ALSO AT
M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY PVT. LTD.
SHOP NO. 56, VASANT PALACE, SECTOR-6, R.K. PURAM,
NEW DELHI 110066 …..RESPONDENT
Date of Institution-28.10.2020
Date of Order-12.07.2024
O R D E R
MONIKA SRIVASTAVA– President
Complainant has filed a present complaint seeking direction of OP to pass a claim of Rs.4,25,000/- with interest @24% per annum since the filing of the claim i.e. 06.02.2019 till realization : Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.25,000/- as expenses.
- It is the stated by the complainant that he had taken an insurance policy for his Innova Car from OP which was valid from 09.06.2018 to 08.06.2019 after paying a premium of Rs.25,693/-.
- It is stated by the complainant that on 05.02.2019, the driver of the complainant parked the car at L.S.C. market, Madangiri, New Delhi but could not find it on the next morning. The driver immediately informed the complainant and also called the police at about 8:45am. PCR van reached the spot made some enquiries and directed the complainant to lodge FIR. Accordingly, complainant visited the Ambedkar Nagar police station and complaint was lodged online which was converted into FIR 004525 dated 06.02.2019. Copy of the FIR is annexed as Annexure C.
- It is further stated by the complainant that OP was also immediately informed by the complainant telephonically as well as physical visit. Copy of the complaint given to OP is annexed as Annexure D.
- In this regard, an untraced report was also filed by the police dated 07.02.2019 in the court of the Ld. ACMM South District, Saket. The untraced report is annexed as Annexure E & F.
- It is a case of the complainant that all the original documents pertaining to the said car was lying inside the car and have been stolen along with the car. Copy of the theft was also given to RTO office on 05.09.2019 by the complainant. It is stated that copies of all the relevant documents are submitted by the complainant to OP office but the OP has arbitrarily repudiated the claim of the complainant without giving any bonafide reasons. The reason informed for repudiation was that the car was given by the complainant on hire to some other person. However, the complainant refutes the allegation. It is stated by the complainant that the complainant was never contacted or asked for any documents but the OP have repudiated the claim of the complainant for wrong and frivolous reasons. It is stated by the complainant that he has suffered lot of physical and mental harassment by repudiating the claim of the complainant on false and frivolous ground to usurp the claim amount.
- In their reply, OP has taken a preliminary objection that complaint has been filed to conceal true and correct facts from the Commission. It is stated by the OP that information to the police as well as the OP was given by a person name Gurpreet Singh S/o Jarnail Singh and not by the complainant as has been alleged by him. It is stated that the insured vehicle was driven by the said person who had taken the vehicle from the owner/ insured namely Harvinder Singh.
- It is stated that as per the investigation report and documents of the complainant, the vehicle in question was given to Mr. Jarnail Singh who is the owner of M/s South Delhi Cab having address at Shop no. 25 L.S.C. Market, Madangir, New Delhi against rent of Rs.10,000/- and an agreement dated 01.11.2018 was also signed between the complainant and the hirer. The said agreement is annexed as Annexure R1 and copy of investigation report is annexed as Annexure R2.
- It is further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the policy the insured is not entitled to give the insured vehicle on hire basis unless it is informed to the insurance company and an additional premium to the tune of 105% of the IDV is paid on it.
IMT.43. FOUR WHEELED VEHICLES AND THREE WHEELED VEHICLES USED FOR CARRYING PASSENGERS FOR HIRE OR REWARD WITH CARRYING CAPACITY NOT EXCEEDING 6 (SIX) PASSENGERS- CLASS C.1.
IMT.35. HIRED VEHICLES –DRIVER BY HIRER
(Applicable to four wheeled vehicles with carrying capacity not exceeding 6 passengers and Motorized Two Wheelers)
It is hereby understood and greed that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this policy unless the vehicle insured is being driver by or is for the purpose of being driver by the insured in the charge of the within named insured or a driver in the insured’s employment, the policy shall only be operative whilst the vehicle insured is let on hire by the insured to any person (herein called the Hirer) who:-
- Shall have entered into a hire contract with the insured and who prior to such hiring shall have satisfactorily completed and signed a supplementary proposal form**
- It is stated by the OP that the said clauses are enumerated in the IMT Rules 2002 prescribed by the IRDA and are applicable to the present insured. It is stated that as per the above clause when the vehicle insured is let on hire, the insurer shall not be liable for any loss, damage or liability arising out of to or arising from theft or conversion by the hirer unless covered by payment of additional premium @1.5% on IDV. The relevant extract from IMT is annexed as Annexure R3.
- Since, there is a material breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, the claim of the complainant was validly repudiated vide letter dated 22.09.2020. Copy of the repudiation letter is annexed as Annexure R4.
- It is further reiterated by the OP that the vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant but the name of the owner in the FIR as well as the final report issued by the police is in the name of Gurpreet Singh S/o Jarnail Singh.
- In his rejoinder, complainant has denied the allegations made by the OP in their reply. It is stated that the complaint was made to the police and to the insurance company on the instructions of the complainant by his authorized representative. It is denied that the insured vehicle was being driven on hirer basis. It is stated that OP has not placed any document on record to prove the said allegations.
- Both the complainant as well as the OP has filed their respective evidence by way of an affidavit as well as written argument. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record and have heard oral arguments. OP has placed on record a copy of memorandum of understanding dated 01.11.2018 between the South Delhi Cab and Harwinder Singh i.e. owner/insured of the said vehicle. According to this agreement, placed on record complainant was to get a fix amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and the agreement was valid for one year. OP has also placed on record investigation report which corroborates the stand taken by OP.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SGS India Limited vs Dolphin International AIR 2021 SC 4849 has held the following
“The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. If the complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the Respondent in the complaint.”
It is therefore, upon the complainant to initially discharge its onus to prove that there was deficiency in service on the part of OP. This Commission has gone through the pleadings and documents filed by the complainant and find that complainant has not been able to discharge this onus. Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merits.
