Delhi

East Delhi

CC/219/2017

SURENDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

O.I.C. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Sep 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 219/17

 

Shri Surender Singh

S/o Shri Kartar Singh

R/o C-326, Ganga Vihar

30 Foota Road, Delhi- 110094

 

….Complainant

Vs.    

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Through its Manager/Director/Officer Incharge

80, First Floor,

FIE Patparganj Industrial Area

Delhi- 110092

1.  

Date of Institution: 05.06.2017

Judgement Reserved on: 02.09.2019

Judgement Passed on:13.09.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

The facts necessary for disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant got his Maruti Swift LXI bearing registration                                           no. DL- 8C-AC- 7029         insured with OP vide policy no. 215700/31/2017/63870 with cover from 06.10.2016 to 05.10.2017.        On 13.11.2016, the insured vehicle met with an accident where the vehicle got completely damaged. The said vehicle was being driven by the complainant’s son, namely, Shri Vikas Chaudhary and the incident happened at Bahalgarh Chowk, main GT Road. At the time of accident the above mentioned Shri Vikas Chaudhary was accompanied by his friends, namely, Shri Vishnu Gautam, Shri Abhishek and Ms. Chhaya. OP was informed telephonically and through written communication vide letter dated 16.11.2016. Surveyor and investigator were appointed. The insured vehicle was towed to Saya Automobiles Ltd., Siraspur Delhi, where repair estimate of Rs.5,87,663/- was given on 06.12.2016. It has been stated by the complainant that despite several telephonic conversations and written communications OP did not settle the claim.

Repudiation letter dated 06.04.2017 was issued by OP, where the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the driver of the insured vehicle, Shri Vikas Chaudhary, was under the influence of alcohol, which was in violation of Policy terms and conditions.

Legal notice dated 15.05.2017 was sent to OP.

Feeling aggrieved by the act/omission on behalf of OP the complainant has filed the present complaint with prayer for directions to OP to pay Rs.5,87,663/- as the cost of estimated repairs, Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment along with interest @18% per annum.

The complainant has annexed copy of UID Card of the complainant, copy of insurance policy, copy of letter of intimation given by complainant to OP dated 16.11.2016, copy of bill for towing the insured vehicle, estimated cost of repairs, repudiation letter, Legal Notice alongwith track report, acknowledgement of receipt of Legal Notice by OP’s office in Patparganj and Driving License of the son of the complainant with the complaint.

Written Statement was filed on behalf of OP upon service of the notice. They have taken several pleas in their defence such as;                Shri Vikas  Chaudhary, who was driving the insured vehicle at the time of accident was under the influence of liquor, which was in violation to condition 2 (c) of policy terms and conditions.

2. The Company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of

(a)…..

(b)…..

(c) any accident loss or damage suffered whilst the insured or any person driving with the knowledge and consent of the insured is under influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.

It was submitted that investigator as well as surveyor were appointed and as per their report also there was breach of policy terms and conditions. Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied.

Repudiation letter dated 06.04.2017, policy terms and conditions, report of investigator dated 25.01.2017, FIR dated 13.11.2016 with           PS: Rai and MLC of Shri Vikas Chaudhary dated 13.11.2016 have been annexed with the Written Statement.

Evidence by way of affidavit was filed on behalf of the complainant, where the contents of the complaint have been repeated. The complainant has got exhibited the copy of UID Card as Ex.CW1/A, copy of insurance policy as  Ex.CW1/B, copy of intimation letter of OP of date 16.11.2016 as Ex.CW1/C, copy of reminder dated 20.03.2017 as Ex.CW1/D, repair estimate dated 06.12.2016 as Ex.CW1/E, repudiation letter dated 06.04.2017 as Ex.CW1/F, complainant has also got exhibited the Legal Notice dated 15.05.2017 as Ex.CW1/G  and the judgement/ order dated 25.08.2017 passed by MACT, Sonepat as Ex.CW1/H.

OP has got examined Shri Rajiv Chopra, Senior Divisional Manager, who has also deposed on oath the contents of their Written Statement and have relied on copy of the MLC, which is exhibited as Ex.RW1/1, copy of FIR as Ex.RW1/2, copy of policy terms and conditions are Ex.RW1/3, surveyor report and investigation report are Ex.RW1/4 and Ex.RW1/5 respectively. Repudiation letter has been exhibited as Ex.RW1/6.

We have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for Complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP, we have also gone through the material placed on record. The existence of insurance policy is an admitted fact. The dispute pertains to rejection of claim by OP on the ground that there was breach of Clause 2 (C) of the policy terms and conditions. The claim has been rejected by OP on the ground that the driver Shri Vikas Chaudhary was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident, therefore, OP was not liable to pay  the claim.

In their support they have placed copy of FIR dated 13.11.2016, registered at PS: Rai, where the complainant is one Shri Vishnu Gautam, who was one of the co-passenger in the insured vehicle at the time of accident. The Counsel for the Complainant has argued that as per the Judgement of Hon’ble MACT, Sonepat, in MACT Petition No. 684/2016 titled as “Raj Kumar Rana and Anr. V/s Vikas Chaudhary and Ors.”  the IO, Shri Sumer Singh, ASI had denied the suggestion given by the Counsel for the Petitioner that Shri Vikas Chaudhary was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident. At the same time, if we look at  the statement of Shri Vishnu Gautam,  who was the co-passenger at the time of accident of the insured vehicle in the surveyor report which is Ex.RW1/4  as well as his statement given to the investigator as in Ex.RW1/5  is the same i.e. Shri Vikas Chaudhary have consumer liquor. This fact is also substantiated in Ex.RW1/2 i.e. FIR. As per statement the of Shri Vishnu Gautam, the person driving insured vehicle, namely, Shri Vikas Chaudhary had consumed liquor. The fact that Shri Vikas Chaudhary was under the influence of alcohol was further supported by Ex.RW1/1, which is the MLC conducted on 13.11.2016, where it was mentioned “Patient disoriented alcohol breathe positive”. Therefore, the statement given by Shri Vishnu Gautam, cannot be doubted. Therefore, the above argument of Ld. Counsel for Complainant does not support their claim.

Thus, it is clear that there was breach of Clause 2(c) of the policy terms and conditions and OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we hold that there is no deficiency of services on the part of OP. Hence, present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits without order to cost.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                                  (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             Member                                                                             President