RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE car of the revision petitioner (complainant before the District Forum), was insured with the respondent/United India Insurance Co. Ltd. with effect from 24.9.2007. It met with an accident on 30.6.2008. The claim of the Complainant under the policy was repudiated by the insurer on 29.5.2009. The consumer complaint filed against repudiation was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana, but the State Commission reversed the decision of the District Forum and allowed the appeal filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. As will be presently seen, the sole issue involved in the matter was whether this car, insured as a private car, was being used for commercial purpose.

(2.) THE letter of repudiation of the claim from the insurer referred to FIR No. 53 of 30.6.2008 registered with Yamuna Nagar Police by one of the occupants, Gurpreet Singh. He had allegedly told the Surveyor/Investigator appointed by the insurer that the vehicle was hired by them for a religious trip for Rs. 25,000. The insurer, therefore, concluded that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose at the time of the accident in contravention of the terms of the policy. The case of the revision petitioner is that there was no evidence in support of this claim of the respondent/insurer. The revision petition further states that:

(3.) THE District Forum has examined in detail the affidavit of Raj Kumar Verma, the Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company. The Investigator has stated that he had met Gurpreet Singh, who had filed the first information report with the police on 30.6.2008 and had mentioned in the FIR that the vehicle No. PB -07K -5111, belonging to Rajinder Singh, was taken on hire to go to Haridwar and Rishikesh. Therefore, Raj Kumar had categorically stated in his affidavit that Gurpreet Singh had told the police that this vehicle had been taken on hire. However, the District Forum has relied on the affidavit of Gurpreet Singh that he never made a statement before the police that the vehicle was taken on hire. The District Forum has also noted that neither the police investigation report nor the affidavit of the investigating police officer were produced before it on behalf of the Insurance Company. The Forum came to a conclusion that it was not proved that this vehicle was being used for commercial purpose.