Bihar

Gaya

CC.No. 104/2012

Harendra Kumar Sinha - Complainant(s)

Versus

ON DOT Courier - Opp.Party(s)

Pannkaj Kumar Mishra

08 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the court of District Consumer Forum, Gaya

Consumer Complainant Case No.-104 of 2012

Gangadhar Prasad Yadav..... Complainant

                    versus
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited and another..... Opposite Parties.

Present:
 1. Shri Ramesh Chandra Singh..... President

 2. Syed Mohtashim Akhtar....Male Member

 3. Smt. Sunita Kumari ....Female Member

 

Dated:- 08.02.

                               1. The instant case has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties for deficiency in service as the opposite party has repudiated his claim and to get ₹4,24,

 

                              (2)                   Case No.-104-2012

 

 

                            2. In brief the case of the complainant is that the complainant is owner of a Mahindra Bolero Jeep, registration number BR 26 C valid from 5th August

                            3. The opposite party appeared and filed their written statement jointly.

 

                              (3)                   Case No.-104-2012

 

 

                            4. It has been mentioned in written statement that the complaint is not maintainable in law or on facts. It is and admitted fact that the vehicle in question was being used for commercial purpose for transporting passengers on contract basis. The complainant had taken a private car package policy to ply the vehicle. Upon receive of claim the opposite party is appointed for an investigation into the alleged theft of the Complaintant's vehicle through an agency M/s Pitterjee Risk Involve Solutions Management and the investigation revealed that the complainant was using the vehicle on hire and reward basis as even on the day of theft also the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose and the complainant had made sum of ₹

                   

                              (4)                   Case No.-104-2012

 

                                5. The Complainant has filed xerox copies  registration book of the Vehicle, certified copy of FIR of Bodhgaya PS case number

                         6. Now the point of determination before this Court is whether there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as sought for.

                        7. It appears from the   Evidences on Affidavit of both parties that all facts are admitted except that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose at the time of theft. In this case the complainant has filed two affidavits one on 6 March

 

                              (5)                   Case No.-104-2012

 

 

the PRISM his confession has been recorded by the investigator which is present on the case file. During the arguments also the complainant has not denied about his confession recorded by the investigation present on case record in Compact Disk. Though we have not heard the  confessional statement of the complainant present in Compact Disc on case record but silence on this point of the complainant forced us to assume that there is confessional statement  of the Complainant in the  Compact Disk which shows that the vehicle in question was being used for commercial purpose.

                       8. In the situation when the vehicle is insured under private car package and is being used on hire what damage should be awarded to the complainant, a case decided by the Honorable Apex court   is relevant. In case of Amalendu Sahoo vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited({

 

                              (6)                   Case No.-104-2012

 

 

 Appaprasad Pathak reported in II( ......................................................................
Description          % of Settlement
......................................................................
1.Under declaration of licensed carrying capacity- deduct 3 years difference in premium from the amount of claim or deduct 25% of claim amount, whichever is higher
2. Overloading of vehicle beyond licenced carrying capacity -Pay claims not exceeding 75% of admissible claim
3. Any other breach of warranty / condition of policy including limitation as to use- Pay up to 75% of admissible claim.
    The Honorable Court in the instant situation of case where the vehicle was used for hire awarded a consolidated sum of

 

 

                              (7)                   Case No.-104-2012

 

 

                           9.  the opposite Parties are directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant within 2 months from the date of order of his Court failing which the complainant will be entitled to get interest at rate of 8% per annum on the amount not paid till the actual payment and the complainant will also be entitled to realize the aforesaid amount through process of court.

 

      Dictated and corrected

 

 

Female Member          Male Member                    President

Sunita Kumari                    Syed Mohtashim Akhtar       Ramesh Chandra Singh