Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1529/2009

Lokesh Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

11 Feb 2020

ORDER

 

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC. 1529/2009                                      Dated:

In the matter of:

 Lokesh Kumar Sharma,

R/o 361, Near Jai Bharti

Public School, Badarpur,

New Delhi-110044

   …Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.   The General Manager,

M/s Reliance General

Insurance Co. Ltd.

IInd Floor, Marcantile House

K.G. Marg, New Delhi.

 

2.     The General Manager,

M/s Reliance General

Insurance Co. Ltd., 60, Okhla,

Industrial Estate, New Delhi.

                                                                     ..… Opposite Parties

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

 

O R D E R

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP 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 AE3089 duly insured  with OP vide policy bearing No. 2091045418 for the insured determined value (IDV)  of Rs. 06,60,250/- for the period 24/03/2008 to 23/03/2009.  The vehicle in question was handed over to M/s Metro City Cab on rental basis by the complainant. On 05/02/2009, the complainant approached M/s Metro City Cab for inspection of the vehicle in question.  On visit it was found that M/s Metro City Cab fled away by locking its office without returning the vehicle in question. As such the complainant informed the OP about the theft of the vehicle in question and also informed P.S. Janakpuri regarding the same. An FIR bearing no. 56/2009 dated 24/02/2009 was registered at P.S. Janakpuri U/s 406/420/120/34 IPC, vide letter dated 08/06/2009 OP asked the complainant to furnish the untraced report and the same was provided to it. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP on various occasion and requested it to settle his claim but all in vain, complainant therefore, approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance.  

2.     Complaint has been contested by the OP.  In its written statement OP has not disputed that complainant had taken policy referred above. OP stated that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the insured vehicle was being used for Hire and Reward, thus attracting the clause “limitation as to the use”.  Secondly, the complainant had failed to take care of the insured vehicle  thus breaching the condition no. 4 of the policy, hence, the repudiation is justified and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

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, Theft of the vehicle in question.  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 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 28/07/2009 on false and frivolous ground. It is further stated that the OP insurance Co. had accepted the premium against the vehicle in question hence, it is liable to indemnify and prayed that relief claim be granted.

7.     Perusal of the complaint shows that, at para 5 of the complaint, the complainant himself admitted that the vehicle in question was handed over to M/s Metro City Cab on rental basis, whereas, the policy document placed on record clarified that the policy in question was issued to private car and not to the commercial vehicle.

Admittedly, the alleged vehicle was running as a taxi at the time of theft. Thus, it is clear that  the vehicle is used for commercial purpose, otherwise than in accordance with the “limitation as to use”. 

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 11/02/2020

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                MEMBER