The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. V/S Mr. Jitendra Singh - Consumer Court Case

Bihar

Gaya

CC/45/2017

Mr. Jitendra Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjay Kumar

12 Dec 2017

ORDER

In the court of District Consumer Forum, Gaya

Consumer Complainant Case No. – 45 of 2017

Jitendra Singh son of late Ram Ratan Singh, resident of village- Bishun Bigha, Post Office-Dariaura, Police Station -Gurua, District- Gaya..Compliment
V/s

1 The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited through Manager legal, 2nd floor, Shanti market, north of Gandhi Maidan, Gaya, At and post office- Gaya, District -Gaya, Bihar
2. The Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited, Swarajpuri Road, Gaya, Bihar..... Opposite Parties.

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

2. Syed Mohtashim Akhtar....Male Member

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

Dated:- 01.02.

(2) Case No.-45-2017

1. The instant case has been filed by the complaint against the Opposite parties for deficiency in service as the Opposite party has not settled his claim for his damaged vehicle and claimed ₹ 3,28, 2. In brief the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Mahindra Maxximo vehicle bearing number BR 02 Q which was valid from 14th April

(3) Case No.-45-2017

vehicle to Mahindra showroom, Gaya but the proprietor refused to take the vehicle. The complainant submitted his claim with all relevant papers before the Opposite party number 1 but his claim has not be settled as yet. The vehicle is totally damaged.

3. Opposite Party No. 1 appeared and filed his written statement, but opposite Party number 2 did not appear so exparte preceding was preceded against him.
4. It has been stated in written statement filed by the opposite party number 1 that the complainant had taken the commercial vehicle package policy from the opposite party. The Policy was issued for a period commencing from 14th April subject to policy terms and conditions which governs the contract of insurance. The maximum number of passengers allowed to travel in the vehicle was mentioned as 8. The insured vehicle was duly Surveyed by an IRDA licenced Suryorer who in his survey report dated 16th April

(4) Case No.-45-2017

Hence, the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 22 August 5. Both parties have filed their evidences on affidavits and relevant documents.
6. The question of determination before this Court is whether the there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party and whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as sought for.

7. The Annexure C,policy paper shows that maximum licenced of carrying capacity including driver is eight(8). The claim form submitted by the complainant itself shows that 12 passengers were carrying by the vehicle in question. Hence, it is clearly the violation of terms and conditions of the policy. But there is settled law that in case of violation of policy the claim should be set off on non standard basis. So far the assessment made by the surveyor of the opposite party, as per settled law it will only be acceptable when it is supported by affidavit by the person who made it but there is no any affidavit on the case record to support the survey report, hence it is not acceptable in evidence. It also appears that the bakeries in Indian running condition and it appears that it is total loss.
Hence, after considering the evidence on