ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. , Patiala against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter called the "district Forum") dated 21.7.2005 by which the complaint of the complainant (respondent herein) was allowed by directing the Insurance Company (appellant herein) to settle the claim of the complainant on non-standard basis so as to pay 75% of the admissible claim.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal may be noticed: the complainant-respondent had got his Scorpio Jeep bearing No. HR61-AA-HQ (T)-6555 insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Sai Market, Lower Bazar, Patiala (hereinafter called the appellant-Company) for the period 14.6.2004 to 13.6.2005 in the sum of Rs.6.38 lacs. One Naresh Kumar was engaged as a driver by the complainant. On 14.7.2004, the complainant had gone to Delhi for about a week and the driver, who had been engaged by the complainant, is stated to have been given instructions to get the said vehicle washed at the Service Station and park at his residence. On 21.7.2004, when the complainant returned from Delhi to Patiala, he came to know that Naresh Kumar driver had gone with some strangers on 14.7.2004 in the said vehicle to some other place and on the night intervening 16/17.7.2004 the vehicle was stolen from the parking of Avenue Hotel near Aligarh. An F. I. R. was lodged by driver Naresh Kumar. The complainant lodged the claim with the appellant-Company when the vehicle was not traced by the Police. The claim was repudiated by the appellant-Company, allegedly, for violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, i. e. , the vehicle, which had been insured as a passenger car, was being used as a taxi when the same was stolen. In other words, the vehicle was not being used for the purpose it was insured i. e. , a private passenger vehicle was being used as a taxi. The District Forum, on the basis of the judgment of the National Commission in Rajiv Rathod V/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003 1 CPJ 206, allowed the complaint as above.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that in this case the Investigator gave the report that the complainant had admitted that the driver had taken passengers in the vehicle of the complainant from whom Rs.1100 per day were settled as hire charge in addition to Rs.600 for the night stay. According to the appellant-Company, in view of the statement of the complainant recorded by the investigator there was no doubt that the vehicle was being used as a taxi at the relevant time. The investigator had mentioned that the statement of the complainant had been recorded without any pressure or undue influence. Complainant had, however, alleged that signatures had been taken on blank papers by the investigator.