APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

ORDER

C.VISWANATH

1. The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, C/B at Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in F.A. No. A/15/224 dated 12.07.2017.

    

2. According to the Respondent/Complainant, he got his truck, Ashok Leyland LPT-2516/2C bearing registration No. MH-31/CQ-4615 insured with the Petitioner for Rs.14,80,000/- vide policy No. 215034/31/12/003038 valid for the period from 24.07.2011 till 23.07.2012. On 17.10.2011, at 8:30 p.m., the driver of Respondent, i.e. Ram Bhardwaj parked the truck leaving keys in the Dashboard within the jurisdiction of Chandkapur Checkpost, Phaparkheda Police Station. At 9:30 p.m. After having dinner, when he returned, he did not find the truck at its place. The Respondent and other employees of Siddique Transport made efforts to search for the truck, but in vain. The Respondent immediately approached Khaparkheda Police Station intimating them about the theft of truck and asked them register a Complaint.The Police instead of registering the Complaint, asked the Respondent to again search for the truck and informed that they would also search for the same. Respondent and his employees searched for the truck, but were unable to find the same and again requested the Police to register a Complaint but the Police refused to register the FIR. Finally on the Court’s intervention, the Police registered FIR No. 188/11 dated 05.11.2011 and drew a Panchnama and also recorded the statement of the truck driver, conductor and neighboring persons. On 18.10.2011, the Respondent intimated the Petitioner by telephone about the incident and claim was registered by the Petitioner followed with intimation letter and Police FIR. After a period of two months, the Petitioner appointed Shri Ranjan Sharma as Surveyor to investigate the matter. The Respondent cooperated with the surveyor by submitting the necessary documents and original keys with dashboard key and requested to settle the insurance claim at the earliest. On 22.05.2012, the Petitioner, however, repudiated the insurance claim of the Respondent on the ground that precautionary measures to protect the truck were not taken, amounting to violation of policy condition. The claim was also repudiated on the ground that the Police was intimated after some delay on 05.11.2011, which amounted to violation of policy condition No.1. Thus, the Complaint was filed by the Petitioner for deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner.

    

3. The Petitioner contested the Complaint by contending that on 05.11.2011, the Respondent intimated the Khaparkheda Police Station about theft of the truck which took place on 17.10.2011, after delay of 20 days, and the Petitioner was intimated about the same on 20.10.2011, after a delay of 3 days from the date of incident. Thus, in this case, the Respondent violated condition no.1 of policy. Hence, the insurance claim of the Respondent was repudiated by the Petitioner. The Petitioner further submitted that truck driver of Respondent left the keys of truck in the dashboard and thereby committed gross negligence in regard to safety of the truck. The aforesaid action on the part of driver amounted to violation of policy condition no. 5.The Respondent, therefore, was not entitled to get any relief. The Petitioner denied the receipt of legal notice issued by the Respondent regrading insurance of truck for Rs.14,80,000/- for the period from 24.07.2011 to 23.07.2012. The Petitioner, vide letter dated 22.05.2012, repudiated the insurance claim of the Respondent completely as per the terms & conditions of policy which did not amount to any deficiency in service.

    

4. District Forum, vide order dated 17.09.2014, allowed the Complaint on the ground that it was clearly mentioned in the report submitted by the investigator of Petitioner that the Respondent intimated the Police Station as well as the Petitioner in regard to theft of vehicle on 18.10.2011 i.e. immediately after the theft of truck on 17.10.2011. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent was not entitled to any benefit due to violation of policy condition No.1 was not acceptable. The Petitioner was directed to pay Rs.14,80,000/- the insured value of stolen Truck No. MH-31CQ-4615 to the Respondent with interest @9% p.a. from the date of Complaint till the actual payment. The Petitioner was further directed pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the Respondent. The order was to be complied within 30 days from the date of order.

    

5. Aggrieved of the order passed by the District Forum, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 12.07.2017, dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner and confirmed the order of the District Forum.Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Petitioner filed a Revision Petition before this Commission.

    

6. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. We have also carefully gone through the record.

    

7. From a perusal of the order of the State Commission as well the District Forum, it is found that the both the Fora below have allowed the Complaint on the basis of consideration of two relevant points i.e. firstly, that the information was given immediately to the Police Station but they delayed in registering his Complaint. If the FIR was issued with a delay by the Police, it cannot be held as a laxity on the part of the Respondent so as to constitute breach of policy condition. Secondly, the spare key was kept under the dash board of the truck and the cabin of the truck was locked. Thus, it cannot be held that the key of the vehicle was left in the open, so as to be accessible to the criminal and to prompt the commission of theft.

    

8. Thus, considering the aforesaid discussion, we come to the conclusion that the Petitioner is not justified in repudiating the claim. The repudiation of the claim of the Respondent certainly constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner. The present Revision Petition is dismissed and the orders passed by the State Commission and District Forum are confirmed.