Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1357/2009

Jagmohan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Apr 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

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

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/1357/09                                                                                                                                                                              Dated:

In the matter of:

Jagmohan Singh,

S/o Sh. Surjeet Singh,

R/o 81-B, LIG Flats,

Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi

 

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

Level-5, Tower-II, Jeevan Bharti,

Connaught Circus, New Delhi

 

                                         ……..OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturevdi

 

The Complainant had taken an insurance coverage for vehicle bearing no.DL-3C-AF-0492 Tata Indigo for the period 12.02.08 to 11.02.09 as per Exh.B. Complainant had sent his driver to drop his friend at Janakpuri and remained waiting for his driver but after long waiting, complainant lodged a police complaint against said vehicle at P.S, Hauz Khas, vide D/D139 dated 26.11.08 & subsequent FIR as per Ext. C & D. It was worked out by police officials during investigation that the said vehicle was robbed by Criminals on 23.11.08 namely Rambir, Dharabir and Bhishan along with Samay Pal who were involved in robbery of vehicle DL-3c-AF-0492 and killed driver Sushil Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Kumar and threw his body near Shamshan Ghat, Mangolpuri, Delhi but robbed vehicle was not traced out by Police officials. Police arrested three accused named above and sent to judicial custody except Samay Pal remained absconded as per Exh. E. Ultimately claim was lodged for theft vehicle along with all relevant documents vide claim application no.311301/31/08/019/0000289 but claim was repudiated on 06.08.09 as per Exh.F. Consequently complaint was filed.

OP fled a reply stating that the vehicle was on private policy subject to condition that it was not to be used for hire & reward. It is stated that FIR was lodged which clearly stated that complainant was running as TAXI service and the passenger Mohan Das had engaged for going to a function in Rohini. He was not friend of complainant. The surveyor also found that fact OP has filed on record affidavit of said Mohan Das and surveyor to depose on these facts. In view of this, it is stated that complainant has not come with clear hands and has made false documents.

We have considered the evidence on record, the affidavit of OP and documents relied by it on record. We have also perused the policy cover note, which excludes use of vehicle for hire & reward. All the evidence of OP on record clearly establishes use of private vehicle for hire and reward which is not reimbursable under the policy. The OP has rightly repudiated the claim. There is no deficiency and therefore we dismissed the complaint.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 29.04.2015.

 

                          

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)                 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER