DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.126/2015

Shri Mahavir Singh                                                                                                             Senior Citizen

S/o Shri Ram Bharose                                                                                                          (61 years old)

R/o RZ-205-B/2, Gali No. 16,

Tughlakabad Extn.

New Delhi-110019.

                                                                                       ….Complainant

Versus

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

M-66, M-Block Market

Greater Kailash-I,

New Delhi-110048.

                                                                                   ….Opposite Party

                                                  Date of Institution      :  31.03.14      Date of Order           :  09.01.18

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased a Chevrolet Tavera car bearing registration No. UP-14-AT-4460 in the year 2008 and the car was insured by the OP vide policy No. 31270231120100004124 for the period 26.10.2012 to 25.10.2013 against premium of Rs.14,137/-. It is submitted that at the time of taking the policy, he was assured by OP that in the event of any accident, loss or theft, he will get the full claim amount as insured. On 12.08.2013 at about 08.00 PM, complainant parked his car in front of Tara Apartment at Guru Ravidas Marg, New Delhi and on the next day i.e. 13.08.2013 at about 08.00 AM, he saw that his car was missing; after proper search a complaint was lodged with police station Govindpuri vide FIR No. 570 dated 13.08.2013 under Section 379 IPC. Thereafter, the police also confirmed the same as UNTRANCED. It is submitted that immediately after the theft of the car the complainant informed the OP about the theft of the car. Claim was filed with the OP after getting all the requisite documents but the same was repudiated on 10.03.2014 by the OP with the reason “your claim has been repudiated as per the policy and conditions”. The repudiation of the claim of the complainant is totally unjustified and without adequate reasoning and amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP and hence the complainant is entitled to Rs.3,75,000/- as per the market value of the car at the time of issuing the insurance policy of the said car. Complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the OPs as follows:-

a)To settle the claims and pay the entitlement amount of Rs.3,75,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the claim till its realization.

b)To pay compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- as damages for mental torture and unfair trade practices.

c)Award cost of proceedings to the complainant.

OP in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the complainant had committed breach of the policy condition and as such the claim was repudiated vide letter 10.03.2014. According to OP the true facts of the case are that the complainant has obtained the coverage of the vehicle from the OP. The vehicle was commercial. During the subsistence of the policy the vehicle was reported to be stolen on 13.8.2013 and intimation was only given on 16.08.2013 although in terms of the policy the complainant was to notify immediately after the loss. The OP company even then appointed the investigator to investigate the loss. The investigator, namely, Delta Detectives after conducting the enquiries submitted his report. It was concluded by the said investigator that the said car was insured as a commercial taxi and registered in the name of the insured and the car was in commercial use by the insured but he did not get the fitness and the permit renewed from the concerned RTA for two years prior to the date of the theft of the said car and as per the joint statement of the insured and the driver of the said car, the car was being used as taxi for local booking though the fitness & permit had expired two years back; therefore the use of the vehicle was in violation of the M.V. Act and the insurance policy’s terms and conditions. It is submitted that the OP has examined the reports and the documents submitted by the complainant as well as the investigator and concluded that the complainant had committed fundamental breach in the terms and conditions of the policy and, therefore, OP accordingly repudiated the claim on 10.03.2014. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The complainant has filed the rejoinder and stated that the claim was repudiated by the OP vide letter dated 10.03.2014 without giving any reason thereof but merely stating “ we regret to inform you that your claim has been repudiated as per policy terms and conditions”.  Nowhere in the said letter any specific term and condition was mentioned that has been claimed to have been violated under which terms or conditions of the policy repudiation of claim was made. Rejoinder says that “It is matter of record that the Vehicle insured was used for commercial purpose”. The vehicle was reportedly stolen on 13.08.13 and immediately the theft report was lodged with the police vide FIR No. 570/13. “It is matter of record that as per the report of the detective agency appointed by the respondent, the vehicle was a commercial taxi and registered in the name of the insured and was in commercial use”. It is denied that the complainant did not get the fitness and the permit renewed from the RTO for two years prior to the date of the theft but the fact is that the tourist permit issued by the RTA, UP had the validity period from 04.09.2008 to 03.09.2013.

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Shri Pitamber Borsia, Manager has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.

          Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.

          We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also carefully gone through the record.

It is not in dispute that the complainant got his Chevrolet Tavera car bearing registration No. UP-14-AT-4460 insured with the OP vide policy No. 31270231120100004124 for the period 26.10.2012 to 25.10.2013 and paid premium of Rs.14,137/-. The  complainant filed the insurance policy as Annexure-A which is valid from 26.10.12 to 25.10.13, FIR report dated 13.08.13 as Annexure-B,  the untrace report dated 15.08.13 as Annexure-C, Repudiation letter dated 10.03.14 is Annexure-D.

Whether or not the vehicle in question had the valid permit and fitness certificate on the relevant date is absolutely unnecessary to discuss because we are not dealing with a case for violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act.

In the repudiation letter dated 10.03.2014 the OP simply stated that “with reference to the above we regret to inform you that your above claim has been repudiated as per policy terms & conditions.” The OP while issuing the repudiation letter did not mention the reasons for repudiation of the complainant’s claim. Counsel for the complainant has relied on decisions in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal (2008) 11 Supreme Court 259 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in case of theft of vehicle, nature of use of the vehicle cannot be looked into and the Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim on that basis. The Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer (Para-12).

Counsel for the complainant has also relied on a decision in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Balwant Singh 2010 (1) CPJ 167, 2010(1) CPR 99 wherein the same view has been taken.

In our considered opinion, the law led down in the decisions referred to by a counsel for the complainant is not applicable in the facts of the present case.

In those cases, it was the private vehicles which had been got insured from the insurance company though the vehicles were stolen. Insurance claims lodged with the insurance companies were rejected by the insurance companies on the ground that the private vehicles were being used for commercial purposes and hence there was a breach of the condition stipulated in the terms and conditions of the concerned insurance policies. It was in this background of the facts that the above law was led down.

Turing to the facts of the present case, we find that according to the complainant himself the vehicle in question was a commercial vehicle, it was insured with the OP as commercial vehicle. Therefore, the nature of the use of the vehicle from the very beginning was commercial since it was a commercial vehicle. Therefore, the question of the change of the use of the vehicle in question did not arise at all. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the law laid down in the two decisions referred above is not applicable to the present case and the rejection / repudiation of claim of the complainant in the present case was perfectly justified.

In view of the above discussion, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 09.01.2018.