CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.448/2012

MR. SHURVEER

S/O SH. CHAPPAN SINGH

R/O 1/170, BLOCK-1, DAKSHIN PURI EXTN.,

NEW DELHI-110062

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                             

Vs.

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

BRANCH OFFICE:-

8, 1^ST FLOOR, KRISHANA MARKET,

NEAR DESH BANDHU COLLEGE,

KALKAJI, NEW DELHI-110019

                                  …………..RESPONDENT

                                 Date of Order:08.01.2019

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav - President

The case of the complainant is that he is driver by profession and is employed with M/s Jasbir Tourist Taxi Service.  The complainant was driving the taxi on 24.09.2011 and on that day taxi met with an accident and for that case an FIR bearing No.116/2011 was registered u/s 279/338 IPC.  In the accident the complainant sustained serious injuries.  The complainant was taken to LNJP hospital where he was admitted in the Neuro Surgery Emergency.   Due to the accident, the complainant lost his all five fingers of his right foot and is still suffering from pain.  The taxi was declared as a total loss vehicle and a separate claim has been passed in favour of the total loss vehicle.  The complainant became permanently handicapped and submitted that under the policy, he was insured being the employee of M/s Jasbir Tourist Taxi Service.  The complainant has prayed that OP be directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- spent by him on his medical treatment alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.  The complainant also sought Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation, Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses and Rs.35,000/- spent towards auto-rikshaw/ taxi, as well as on special diet.

OP in reply took the plea that the complainant is not a consumer.  It is further stated that no Personal Accident cover was issued under the policy in question.  It is also stated that the complainant met with an accident prior to the issuance of policy in question.  There is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP.  It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

We have gone through the case file carefully.

The complainant has stated that in the accident, the taxi was declared as a total loss vehicle for which a separate claim has been filed.  The complainant has failed to prove filing of any such claim on record. 

OP has categorically stated that the policy was taken after the accident.  It is an admitted fact that the accident took place at 06.05 AM on 24.09.2011 and for that FIR was duly lodged.  The complainant has itself placed on record insurance policy for the period from 12:58 on 24.09.2011 in the afternoon to midnight of 23.09.2012 meaning thereby that the policy was taken after the accident.  OP has specifically stated that the policy was taken after the accident and this fact has not been specifically denied by the complainant in the replication. 

Since the policy was taken after the accident, the present complaint is not maintainable.  Hence the complaint is dismissed.

Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

                        (H.C. SURI)                                                                                                                  (A.S. YADAV)

                 MEMBER                                                                                                      PRESIDENT