PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                                                         CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 42/2022

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Sri. Sekhar Kumar Agrawal,

S/o-Sri. Shyam Sundar Agrawal,

R/o At-Nuapada, Golebazar, P.O/Ps -Town,

Dist-Sambalpur-768001.                                                         ...………..Complainant

Versus

1. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd

Plot No. 1886, Main road Budharaja,

Infront of Orissa State Cooperative Bank,

Atha Colony, 2^nd floor, Sambalpur-768004

2. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd

E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Sitapura Industrial Area,

Jaipur. Rajasthan-302022.                                   …………...Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. S.N.Panda & Associates
2. For the O.P.s                       :- Sri. B.K. Purohit

Date of Filing:13.06.2022,Date of Hearing :18.12.2023,Date of Judgement : 05.02.2024

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complaint is that the complainant insured his Honda Activa-5G scooty with the O.Ps vide policy No. 331011/31/20/005840 for the period 29.06.2019 to 28.06.2024 under Two wheeler package policy scheme for IDV- Rs. 53,698/-. On 10.06.2021 the vehicle was stolen from in front of Nexa show room, Remed, Sambalpur when brother of the Complainant Kausik Agrawal had kept the scooty under ignition lock. The matter was reported vide PS Case No. 286 dated 12.06.2021. The police could not trace out the scooty, submitted final form as FRT, No. CLUE on 01.09.2021 and closed the case.

Claim No. 10000/31/22/N/001497 was raised and the O.Ps vide letter No. SGIC/CLM/21-22/4 dated 15.09.2021 sort for documents along with both the keys to the surveyor. Vide letter dated 06.10.2021 the O.Ps repuated the claim on the ground of “Gross negligence as No claim, vide letter dated 06.11.2021 the complainant protested and requested for reconsideration. When no reply received, pleader notice dated 05.01.2022 was issued. Being aggrieved complaint has been filed.

2. The O.Ps in their version admitted the issuance of the policy. The Complainant has violated the condition No. 4 of the policy. On the ground of gross negligence the claim has been repudiated and communicated to the Complainant. When a vehicle is parked in the Nexa Co. as per their parking policy the responsibility of theft of the vehicle goes to the Nexa Co.
3. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant. OD-15N 7211 vehicle has been registered in the name of Sekhar Kumar Agrawal and insured with policy No. 331011/31/20/005840 and valid till 01.07.2024. Certificate cum insurance policy issued on 29.06.2019. On payment of Rs. 54,988/- Jas motors sold the vehicle on 29.06.2019. Vide letter dated 15.09.2021 the O.Ps sort for documents from Complainant and Vide letter dated 06.10.2021 repudiated the claim. Pleader notice dated 05.01.2022 was issued to the O.Ps. The Complainant filed order sheet in G.R. Case No. 2201/2021 of the court of S.D.J. M. Sambalpur, copy of FIR dated 12.06.2021 before Ainthapali P.S. and final form.

The O.Ps filed certificate cum policy schedule and repudiation letter dated 06.10.2021.

4. During the course of argument learned advocate for Complainant Sri Panda submitted that as per requirement of the O.Ps all the documents have been submitted. For reconsideration pleader notice was given but the O.Ps remained silent. On the ground of “safety measures not taken” the claim was repudiated. The scooty was kept in the parking area of Nexa show room by turning off the ignition to enable other vehicles to move freely as and when required as per the parking policy of Nexa Co. At the time of issuance of policy no terms and conditions have been supplied to the Complainant. Non disclosure of terms and conditions amount to deficiency in service. Accordingly, the O.Ps are liable to pay the IDV and other reliefs.

Sri. Purohit, advocate for O.Ps submitted that the Complainant has been informed about the terms and conditions of the policy. Condition No. 4 has been violated. The F.I.R. it self discloses that the vehicle has not been locked which is a gross negligence. The O.Ps have rightly repudiated the claim.

5. After going through the version, reply and documents of the parties it is the admitted case of both the parties that vehicle No. OD-15N-7211 was stolen from Nexa Co. On 10.06.2021 F.I.R. was lodged and the police finally submitted the final form.

In the present complaint only point of consideration is that whether the complaint was negligently not locked the vehicle?

It is the submission of the Complainant that scooty was kept in the parking by turning off the ignition to enable other vehicles to move freely. It does not mean that it is an open invitation for theft. Theft means property taken without the consent of the owner. The O.Ps not challenged the delay in filing F.I.R., the only point raised is negligence. In ‘theft’ negligence not at all a point of consideration. The F.I.R. discloses theft has been committed, the Complainant sustained loss and vehicle not recovered.

On our considered view the Complainant is not negligent as rightly parked the vehicle. The ground of repudiation of claim of O.Ps is not proper and accordingly set-aside.

The following order is passed:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed on contest against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are directed to pay IDV of Rs. 53,698/- with 6% interest w.e.f. 12.06.2021 within one month of this order. In case of non-payment the amount will carry 12% interest P.A. till realization. For harassment and litigation expenses the O.Ps are to pay Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively to the Complainant.

Order pronounced in the open court on 5^th day of Feb 2024.

Supply free copies to the parties.