Delhi

StateCommission

FA/474/2013

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GIC LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAMESH GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

07 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

 (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                                                      

                                                                                                                                                 Date of Decision:   7.09.2016                                                                                     

First Appeal No.474/2013

 

 

M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insuance Co. Ltd. 2nd Floor, 1, DLF Industrial Estate Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015
……APPELLANT
Vs.
Sh. Ramesh Gupta S/o Sh. B. Gupta C-33, Anand Vihar Uttam Nagar New Delhi-110059
.…..RESPONDENT	m
CORAM   N P Kaushik Member (Judicial) Salma Noor  Member   1.       Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? -Yes 2.       To be referred to the reporter or not? -Yes

N P Kaushik Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the orders dated 22.1.13 passed by the Ld. District Forum (North-West), Shalimar Bagh,New Delhi. Vide impugned orders, Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Appellant/OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.6,59,000/- alongwith interest @10% p.a. w.e.f. repudiation of the claim i.e. 9.2.11 till the date of itsrealization. Costs of litigation of Rs.25,000/- were also awarded. Parties hereinafter shall be referred to bytheir status in the original complaint.
2.         Facts in brief as disclosed in the complaint are that  Sh. Ramesh Gupta, respondent/OP purchased a policy of insurance in respect of his vehicle DL4CNB 0136 from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.  (in short the OP) which was valid for a period from 17.8.05 to 16.8.06. It is also admitted that the vehicle in question met with an accident in the night intervening 19^th and 20^th July, 2006. Complainant alleged that it was a claimof total loss. On preference of the case, OP repudiated the same on the grounds that the vehicle was being plied as a taxi at the time of accident. Defence raised by the OP was that the Surveyor appointed by it submitted ‘case of no claim’.
3.         Ld. District Forum observed that the report of the Surveyor could not be relied upon as the same was not supported by an affidavit. The report of the Surveyor was based on surmises and conjectures. It was assumed by the Surveyor that a number of persons were travelling by the vehicle at the time of accident. Surveyor had not recorded the statement of the occupants of the car or any other person in support of his report. Ld. District Forum also observed that it was not the case of the OP that the accident took place for the reason that the vehicle was being plied as a taxi for a hire. The vehicle was also not an offending vehicle. The driver of the vehicle also did not contribute to the accident in any manner. Reliance was placed by the Ld. District Forum on the following cases:-

1. Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravaden, 1(1987) ACC 413 (SC) (1987)2SCC 654,
2. Jitendra Kumar v. oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Another, (2003) 6 SCC 420,
3. National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Swaran Singh & Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297
4. United India Insurance Company v. Surjit Singh Asal, III (1999) CPJ 79 (NC)
5. B.V. Nagaraju v. M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., II (1996) CPJ 18 (SC).

4.         Ld. Counsel for the appellant, Sh. L.R. Goel, Advocate has placed reliance on the case of IFFCO TOKIO General insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gaurav Bhargava, II (2015) CPJ 196 (NC) wherein the Hon’ble National Commission hasheld that the repudiation of the claim was justified when against a Private Car Policy the vehicle was being plied as taxi at the time of accident. We have carefully gone through the aforesaid citation. In the said case, in the FIR itself it was recorded that the vehicle in question was being plied on hire. The contention was also supported by the statement of one of the occupants of the vehicle. It was for hat reasons that the Hon’ble National Commission came to the conclusion that the vehicle was being used as taxi.
5. Coming to the case in hand as discussed above there is no statement made by either the occupants of the vehicle or any person who witnessed the accident. FIR recorded in the present case too does not make a mention whether the vehicle was being used as a taxi. In the absence of any material to show that the vehicle in question was being used as taxi, we find that the OP was not justified in repudiating the claim.  There is, therefore, no infirmity and illegality in the orders impugned. Appeal is, therefore dismissed.
6.         Before parting it may be mentioned here that the appellant has failed to pay the costs of Rs.2,000/- imposed upon him for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. On this ground too, the appeal is dismissed.
7.         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and one copy to the District Forum (North-West), Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi.  File thereafter be consigned to Record Room.