Haryana

StateCommission

A/121/2016

ALOK GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

RAVI KANT

08 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    121 of 2016

Date of Institution:    08.02.2016

Date of Decision :     08.08.2016

 

Alok Gupta s/o Sh. Durga Prashad Gupta, Resident of House No.927, Press Street, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through Branch Manager, Branch Office at Opposite Hindu Girls College, Court Road, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:              Shri Ravi Kant, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of unsuccessful complainant is directed against the order dated December 22^nd, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.                Alok Gupta-complainant (appellant herein) got his car (Hyundai Accent Sedan), bearing registration No.HR-02P-0401, insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party/respondent, for the period December 30^th, 2008 to December 29^th, 2009 for Rs.4.00 lacs.  

3.                During the intervening night of October 23^rd/24^th, 2009, the car was stolen from the custody of complainant’s driver namely Neeraj @ Rinku, in the area of Nahan, Himachal Pradesh. First Information Report (FIR) Annexure-1 was lodged in Police Station, Nahan. Intimation was given to the Insurance Company. Claim being filed, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim vide letter dated May 21^st, 2010 (Annexure-9) stating as under:-

“In connection with the above, we are to inform you that while going through the FIR No.260 Dated 08/11/2009 lodged with P.S. Nahan (H.P.) and other related documents it has been observed that the said vehicle was plying on hire or rewards at the time of theft, which is violation of policy conditions, whereas as per registration of the vehicle is registered for private use.”     

4.                Aggrieved complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5.                The Insurance Company-opposite party contested complaint by filing written version wherein it reiterated the fact stated in the repudiation letter and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.                Counsel for the parties have been heard. File perused.

7.                Indisputably, the car was insured with the Insurance Company and the same was stolen.

8.                The Insurance Company is denying the insurable benefits to the complainant on the ground that the car was insured as a private vehicle but was being used for hire and reward. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has relied upon F.I.R. (Annexure-1) which was recorded on the basis of application submitted by Neeraj Kumar-driver.

9.                The contention raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is of no help as the driver has not stated that the car was being used for hire and reward. He has only stated that he was deputed by the owner to collect some clothes from a boutique at Yamuna Nagar and on the way a person stopped him; out of greed, he agreed to take the said person to Nahan. He was drugged by that person and became unconscious and thereafter found himself lying at hospital. Even if assuming that the driver had taken the car, it was an unauthorized act by the driver and without the knowledge and permission of the owner. Therefore, the act of the driver cannot be termed that the car was being used for hire and reward.

10.              Next limb of argument is that there was delay in lodging FIR. This ground was not taken by the appellant-Insurance Company in its letter (Annexure-7) whereby the claim was repudiated.  However, the delay in lodging of the FIR has been satisfactorily explained by the complainant. It has come in evidence that the complainant had deputed his driver (Neeraj @ Rinku) to collect some clothes from a boutique at Yamuna Nagar. On the way some unknown person contacted him and requested to drop him at Nahan. Out of the greed, the driver agreed to take the said person to Nahan, however, on the way the driver was drugged and he became unconscious. A reference may be made to the Medico Legal Report (MLR) Annexure-4, which was prepared by the Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Nahan. MLR specifically finds mention that the patient was severely drowsy. It also finds that an unknown passenger had offered him some eatable and coffee which followed the patient to be unconscious and he was found lying near Chaugan (a plain open ground in hilly area) and was brought to hospital by some passerby. Unless the driver gained conscious fully, neither FIR could be lodged with detailed facts nor any intimation could be given to the Insurance Company.

11.              In view of the above, it cannot be said that the car was being used for hire and reward and therefore the Insurance Company is held liable to pay the IDV to the complainant.

12.              For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is accepted. The Insurance Company-Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.4.00 lacs, that is, IDV of the car, to the complainant besides Rs.5,000/- for costs of litigation. The complainant is directed to execute the letter of subrogation, to hand over the key of the car and transfer the Registration Certificate in the name of the Insurance Company and execute all other necessary documents required for the purpose.

 

Announced 08.08.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL