Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Singh and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1147471
CourtDelhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided OnMay-16-2014
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 414 of 2011
JudgeTHE HONOURABLE MR. S.A. SIDDIQUI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. S.C. JAIN, MEMBER
AppellantRoyal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.
RespondentAbhishek Singh and Another
Excerpt:
s.a. saddiqui, member (judicial): 1. appellant/op m/s. royal sundaram alliance insurance co. ltd. has filed this appeal under section 15 of c.p.act, 1986 against the order dated 14.7.2011 passed by dcdrf-vi, k.g.marg, new delhi under complaint case no.1620/09. 2. the brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent no.1 shri abhishek singh is the owner of bolero car bearing no.up14 an 0044. this vehicle was duly insured with op/appellant for a sum of rs.4,50,000/- for the period 19.9.2008 to 18.9.2009. it was ensured as a private vehicle. during the intervening night of 2-3.2.2009 this vehicle was stolen from outside of complainants noida office for sometime he tried to search the vehicle but could not find it. he immediately informed the local police. intimation was also sent to insurance company on 3rdfebruary itself through mobile phone of mr. parveen and also through fax (exhibit cw1/i). the vehicle could not be traced by the police. the complainant, therefore, preferred the insurance claim alongwith all necessary papers such as fir, untraced report etc. the insurance co. appointed an investigator to investigate the matter and assess the loss. the insurance claim was however repudiated by the insurance company on the ground of misrepresentation of facts, delay of three days in intimation of the theft to insurance company and also for violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. the complainant thereafter filed the consumer complaint for the alleged deficiency of service on the part of the insurance company claiming reimbursement of insured amount, compensation and the cost. 3. the appellant/op insurance company filed reply stating therein that the vehicle in question was insured as a private vehicle and meant for private use only. however, during investigation it came to light that the vehicle was commercially used as it had travelled 29364 kms, within 8 months of purchase. this proves beyond doubt that the vehicle was used commercially. during the course of investigation it was also found that one star travels was using this vehicle on hire and reward basis. 4. the complainant, however rebutted these allegations of the ops through filing rejoinder. the complainant maintained that the vehicle was being used strictly as a private vehicle and it was in his personal use. he was resident of narainpur, distt. sultanpur, up which is 1500 kms away and he used to visit his native place once or twice a month. besides, his work place office was 30 kms away. he further stated that he has two cars for business which are attached with star tour and travels for commercial use but the vehicle in question was in his personal use. the insurance company has resorted to false allegations with a view to deny the rightful claim of the claimant. 5. parties led evidence in support of their cases. the ld. dcdrf through its order dated 14.7.2011 allowed the complaint and directed the op-1/appellant to make payment of the insurance amount alongwith interest @9% from the date of filing the claim to the date of actual payment within a period of 30 days. the ld. forum further allowed compensation of rs.20,000/- alongwith cost of rs.25,000/- 6. op-1/insurance company felt aggrieved and preferred this appeal on the ground that impugned order dated 14.7.2011 was contrary to the facts and law. it was based on conjectures and surmises. the ld. distt. forum failed to appreciate that the complainant was guilty of suppression of material facts regarding the usage of the vehicle in question. the vehicle was got insured as a private vehicle but actually it was commercially used, which is a flagrant violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. the contract was therefore vitiated and the insurance company was justified in repudiating the insurance claim. besides, the intimation of the theft was given after the delay of three days whereas the intimation should have been given immediately. 7. the complainant/op filed reply, maintaining that the vehicle in question was never commercially used and intimation of theft was given the very same day. there was no violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. the vehicle was never used commercially or it was never attached with star travels which used it for hire and reward purposes. 8. we have heard shri virender prabhakar, counsel for appellant and shri avinash tyagi, counsel for respondent and perused the record. 9. one of the main grounds for repudiating the insurance claim was that there was suppression of facts regarding usage of the vehicle. it was alleged by the appellant/ insurance company that the vehicle was insured as a private vehicle, but it was commercially used. during the investigation it was found that within a period of eight months the vehicle had travelled 29364 kms, which by itself proves that it was being used commercially. moreover, it was also found that star tour and travels was using this vehicle for hire and reward purposes. 10. this tantamount to gross violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the contract stands vitiated. the insurance company has therefore rightly repudiated the claim. 11. since these allegations were made by the insurance company, the burden of proof was upon the insurance company. the insurance company miserably failed to adduce sufficient evidence in support of its allegations. apart from this, allegations of violations of terms and conditions of the insurance policy have little relevance in a theft case of a vehicle. there was no evidence to support the allegation that undue delay was caused in sending intimation of the theft. 12. we find no discrepancy in the impugned order dated 14.7.2011 passed by ld. dcdrf-vi, k.g.marg, new delhi. the impugned judgement and order does not suffer from any illegality and irregularity. the appeal has therefore no force and is liable to be dismissed.
Judgment:

S.A. Saddiqui, Member (Judicial):

1. Appellant/OP M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed this appeal under Section 15 of C.P.Act, 1986 against the order dated 14.7.2011 passed by DCDRF-VI, K.G.Marg, New Delhi under Complaint case No.1620/09.

2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent No.1 Shri Abhishek Singh is the owner of Bolero Car bearing No.UP14 AN 0044. This vehicle was duly insured with OP/appellant for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- for the period 19.9.2008 to 18.9.2009. It was ensured as a private vehicle. During the intervening night of 2-3.2.2009 this vehicle was stolen from outside of complainants NOIDA office for sometime he tried to search the vehicle but could not find it. He immediately informed the local police. Intimation was also sent to Insurance Company on 3rdFebruary itself through mobile phone of Mr. Parveen and also through Fax (Exhibit Cw1/I). The vehicle could not be traced by the police. The complainant, therefore, preferred the insurance claim alongwith all necessary papers such as FIR, untraced report etc. The insurance co. appointed an Investigator to investigate the matter and assess the loss. The insurance claim was however repudiated by the insurance company on the ground of misrepresentation of facts, delay of three days in intimation of the theft to insurance company and also for violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant thereafter filed the consumer complaint for the alleged deficiency of service on the part of the insurance company claiming reimbursement of insured amount, compensation and the cost.

3. The appellant/OP Insurance company filed reply stating therein that the vehicle in question was insured as a private vehicle and meant for private use only. However, during investigation it came to light that the vehicle was commercially used as it had travelled 29364 kms, within 8 months of purchase. This proves beyond doubt that the vehicle was used commercially. During the course of investigation it was also found that one Star Travels was using this vehicle on Hire and Reward basis.

4. The complainant, however rebutted these allegations of the Ops through filing rejoinder. The complainant maintained that the vehicle was being used strictly as a private vehicle and it was in his personal use. He was resident of Narainpur, Distt. Sultanpur, UP which is 1500 kms away and he used to visit his native place once or twice a month. Besides, his work place office was 30 kms away. He further stated that he has two cars for business which are attached with Star Tour and Travels for commercial use but the vehicle in question was in his personal use. The insurance company has resorted to false allegations with a view to deny the rightful claim of the claimant.

5. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The Ld. DCDRF through its order dated 14.7.2011 allowed the complaint and directed the OP-1/appellant to make payment of the insurance amount alongwith interest @9% from the date of filing the claim to the date of actual payment within a period of 30 days. The Ld. Forum further allowed compensation of Rs.20,000/- alongwith cost of Rs.25,000/-

6. OP-1/Insurance Company felt aggrieved and preferred this appeal on the ground that impugned order dated 14.7.2011 was contrary to the facts and law. It was based on conjectures and surmises. The Ld. Distt. Forum failed to appreciate that the complainant was guilty of suppression of material facts regarding the usage of the vehicle in question. The vehicle was got insured as a private vehicle but actually it was commercially used, which is a flagrant violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The contract was therefore vitiated and the insurance company was justified in repudiating the insurance claim. Besides, the intimation of the theft was given after the delay of three days whereas the intimation should have been given immediately.

7. The complainant/OP filed reply, maintaining that the vehicle in question was never commercially used and intimation of theft was given the very same day. There was no violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The vehicle was never used commercially or it was never attached with Star Travels which used it for hire and reward purposes.

8. We have heard Shri Virender Prabhakar, Counsel for appellant and Shri Avinash Tyagi, Counsel for respondent and perused the record.

9. One of the main grounds for repudiating the insurance claim was that there was suppression of facts regarding usage of the vehicle. It was alleged by the appellant/ insurance company that the vehicle was insured as a private vehicle, but it was commercially used. During the investigation it was found that within a period of eight months the vehicle had travelled 29364 Kms, which by itself proves that it was being used commercially. Moreover, it was also found that Star Tour and Travels was using this vehicle for hire and reward purposes.

10. This tantamount to gross violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the contract stands vitiated. The insurance company has therefore rightly repudiated the claim.

11. Since these allegations were made by the Insurance Company, the burden of proof was upon the insurance company. The Insurance Company miserably failed to adduce sufficient evidence in support of its allegations. Apart from this, allegations of violations of terms and conditions of the insurance policy have little relevance in a theft case of a vehicle. There was no evidence to support the allegation that undue delay was caused in sending intimation of the theft.

12. We find no discrepancy in the impugned order dated 14.7.2011 passed by Ld. DCDRF-VI, K.G.Marg, New Delhi. The impugned judgement and order does not suffer from any illegality and irregularity. The appeal has therefore no force and is liable to be dismissed.