ORDER
(Passed this on 22nd September, 2016)
Shri Shekhar P. Muley, President.
01 This complaint is regarding refusal of insurance claim of stolen vehicle by the Insurance Company.
02 The complainant has purchased a truck for his business to earn livelihood. Its registration No is MH-35-K-1123 and it was insured with the OP1, Insurance Company and policy was valid till 3.7.2013. On 16.1.2012 he brought the truck to Patansawangi to load bricks. Since it was night and he was late to go to the brick kiln, he parked the truck near a bus stop at Waki. He removed the ignition key and kept it in truck cabin and went to a nearby shop to sleep. Next day morning he did not find the truck and so searched for it. He then went to Saoner to give police report. But he was told that they would first search for it and if not found then his report would be registered. Ultimately police registered FIR on 20.11.2012. Then he lodged claim with the OP 1 and also intimated to OP2, which has given finance for the truck. He gave many papers with his signatures to OP 1. But the OP 1 rejected his claim on 15.3.2013. The OP 2 also did not help him and is pressurising him to pay loan installments. Alleging deficiency in service, he has claimed the amount with interest along with compensation and cost.
03 OP1 filed reply at Ex.8 and stated that the complainant failed to take reasonable care of the truck from loss or damage and thus contravened policy condition. Secondly, intimation of theft was given to it after 16 days of the incident which is also against the policy terms. On these grounds the claim was rejected. Denying rest of the contents, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
04 OP 2 filed reply at Ex.11. It is stated that he is granted loan of Rs.8 lakh and he agreed to repay it in 41 installments of Rs.28568/- pm from 23.2.2012. But to delay repayment he has filed this complaint. The OP 2 has nothing to do with the theft of his truck and is unnecessarily impleaded. It was never intimated about theft of the truck. Since he made default in repayment since June 2012 an Arbitration proceeding was initiated against him on 24.12.2012 as per loan agreement and an award has been passed against him on 15.4.2013 entitling it to recover the amount and to take possession of the truck. An execution application is filed in the court. This is not deficiency in service. The complainant has suppressed these material facts. Hence,it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
05 Heard learned counsel for OP 1. None appeared for the complainant and OP2 to argue. Perused the documents. We record our findings for the following reasons.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
06 The complaint is regarding rejection of the insurance claim of stolen truck. The OP 2 which is a financier has been unnecessarily joined. The complainant has been continuously absent. He has not even filed rejoinder to the replies of the OPs nor has filed notes of argument. If the arbitration award is already passed in the matter the forum loses its jurisdiction. There is no
denial to the fact of arbitration award. Therefore the OP2 is within its right to claim compliance of the award. No order can now be passed against OP 2.
07 As far as theft of the truck is concerned, we notice that the complainant himself was careless for the theft. As per his own version in the complaint he parked the truck on the road, put the ignition key in the truck cabin and went to a shop to sleep. He had thus given easy opportunity to robber to steal his truck. As per condition No.4 of the policy, he was supposed to take all reasonable steps to safe guard the truck from loss or damage and it shall not be left unattended without proper precautions to prevent loss. By his own conduct he committed breach of this condition and therefore his claim was rightly rejected.
08 Next ground for rejection was delay in intimation of the theft. Policy condition prescribes that notice of theft of vehicle shall be given immediately upon occurrence of the event to police and insurance company. Admittedly there was 16 days delay in giving intimation to the OP 1 and that amounts to breach of policy condition. It has been consistently held by the Hon´ble Supreme Court and National Commission that delay in giving intimation of loss or accidental damage or theft of insured vehicle amounts to breach of policy and so it relieves the insurance company from indemnifying the insured.
09 For aforesaid reasons we find no illegality or deficiency in service of the OP1 in rejecting his claim. The complaint is thus liable to be dismissed. Hence the order.
ORDER
(01) The complaint is dismissed.
(02) No order as to cost.
(03) Copy of the judgment be provided to both the
parties free of cost.
