Advocate Abhijit Hartalkar for the Complainant
Advocate Aarti A. Soman for the Opponent
Per Hon’ble Shri. V. P. Utpat, President
:- JUDGMENT :-
Date – 10th December 2013
This complaint is filed by consumer against the Insurance Company for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts are as follows-
[1] Complainant is resident of Talegaon Dabhade. He has purchased truck bearing No.MH 14 AS 8533 which was insured with the opponent for the period of 12/3/2011 to 11/3/2012 for Rs.6,03,500/- Complainant is running the said truck mainly in Solapur District. He has appointed driver Chandrakant Ramchandra Dhumal on the said truck. On 12/8/2011 the truck was plied to Phaltan, District Satara for delivery of goods. On 13/8/2011 at about 2 p.m. the truck was parked at M.P. Kegaon, Tal. Uttar Solapur, District Solapur. On the next day, in the morning, the driver found that the truck was stolen. He lodged FIR in the police station. The truck was locked at the time of theft. Police directed him to search the stolen truck. Thereafter he informed about the theft of truck to the opponent on 31/8/2011. The statement of complainant was recorded. On 15/11/2011 the opponent has repudiated the claim of complainant on the basis of negligence. Complainant sent e-mail to the opponent and informed about the incident. There was no negligence on the part of the complainant. The opponent has wrongly repudiated the claim. Hence, complainant has filed present complaint and claimed compensation of Rs.6,03,500/- along with interest @ 14% p.a. and further claimed Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation.
[2] Opponent resisted the claim by filing written version in which it has denied the contents of complaint. It has denied the contents of complaint in toto. According to the opponent, the driver was negligent. The incident of theft was not communicated to the opponent forthwith. Opponent has investigated the incident by appointing investigator. During the course of investigation the complainant has admitted that the key was left in the truck. This indicates that there was negligence on the part of the complainant. Hence the Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim. Opponent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
[3] After considering the pleadings of both parties, scrutinizing the documents and written argument as well as hearing the argument of both counsel following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1 | Whether complainant has proved that opponent has wrongly repudiated the insurance claim and caused deficiency in service ? | In the affirmative |
2 | What order ? | Complaint is partly allowed. |
Reasons-
As to the point Nos. 1 and 2-
[4] The admitted facts in the present proceeding are that the complainant is the owner of the truck in question which was insured with the opponent for the period of 12/3/2011 to 11/3/2012 for Rs.6,03,500/. It is also not in much dispute that the truck was stolen on 13/8/2011. The defence of the opponent is that the complainant was negligent and the driver of the truck had left the key in the vehicle. In that context opponent has strongly relied upon the report of investigator before whom the complainant had admitted that the key were left in the truck. The learned Advocate for the complainant argued before me that the driver of the truck has promptly lodged FIR on the same day. In the FIR it is not mentioned that the key of the truck was left in the truck. On the contrary it is mentioned that somebody had stolen the truck by using duplicate key. It is the case of the complainant that the officer of the insurance company and the investigator impressed upon the complainant that if the driver would admitted that the key is left in the truck, then the claim will be settled. It is significant to note that the officers of opponent has recorded the statement on 31/8/2011. The driver had lodged FIR on 13/8/2011 in which he never stated that the key of the truck was left in the truck. In the light of the documentary evidence which is produced on behalf of the complainant, it is crystal clear that the driver never left the key in the truck. Hence, Forum held that the opponent has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant.
[5] The learned Advocate for the opponent has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in RP No.3840 of 2011 between Devinder Kumar vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. in which it has been observed that there was delay in lodging FIR and the driver had left key in the dumper and this fact was referred in the FIR by the driver himself. In that context, the claim of the owner of vehicle was repudiated and this fact was upheld by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
[6] The other judgment on which reliance has been placed upon by the Opponent is of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal No.321 of 2005 between New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane. In that proceeding also it has been observed that the owner was not prompt in lodging FIR. Such is not a case in the present proceeding. In the present proceeding it is established by the complainant that FIR was lodged promptly i.e. on the same day. In such circumstances, the judgments on which the learned Advocate for the Opponent has placed reliance upon, cannot be helpful to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
[7] In such circumstances, Forum held that the complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent due to wrong repudiation of the claim. As per the contents of the policy, it is clear that the truck was insured for Rs.6,03,500/-. Hence, complainant is entitled for the said amount. Complainant has asked for Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and costs. That appears to be exaggerated. In the opinion of Forum, complainant is entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental and physical sufferings and costs of litigation. We answer the points accordingly and pass the following order.
:- ORDER :-
1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that the opponent has caused deficiency in service by wrongly repudiating the claim of the complainant.
3. Opponent is directed to pay amount of Rs.6,03,500/- to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
4. Opponent is directed to pay amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental and physical sufferings and costs of the litigation within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
5. Both parties are directed to collect the sets which are provided for the Members within one month from the date of order. Else those will be destroyed.
Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
Place – Pune
Date – 10/12/2013
