Haryana

StateCommission

A/511/2015

RELIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANIL KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.GOYAL

02 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      511 of 2015

Date of Institution:      05.06.2015

Date of Decision :       02.11.2015

 

1.     Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, First Floor, City Centre, Opposite I.B. Collage, Panipat, through its Branch Manager.

2.     The Divisional Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Plot No.2, Tower-F, First Floor, DLF Building, I.T. Park, Chandigarh through its Manager Legal Amit Chawla.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Anil Kumar s/o Sh. Subhash Chander, Resident of Village Mohmmdabad, Tehsil and District Sonipat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for appellants.

                             None for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’) and another – Opposite Parties, are in appeal against the order dated March 12^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby it directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.8.00 lacs alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization to Anil Kumar-complainant/respondent on account of theft of his truck.

2.          The complainant got his truck bearing registration No.HR-69B/1655 insured with the Insurance Company for the period from January 5^th, 2011 to January 4^th, 2012 vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-1. The Insured Declared Value of the truck was Rs.8.00 lacs. It was stolen on March 24^th, 2011. First Information Report No.79 dated March 25^th, 2011 (Exhibit C-3) under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, was lodged in Police Station Sadar Sonipat. The Insurance Company was informed. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit C-5) was filed by the Police. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter Exhibit C-28 on the ground that the ignition key was left in the truck by its driver.

3.      Aggrieved of the repudiation of his claim, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      The complaint was contested by the opposite parties by filing reply wherein they reiterated the fact stated in the repudiation letter and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      After evaluating the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, the District Forum allowed complaint directing the opposite parties as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

6.      Indisputably the truck was fully insured with the Insurance Company at the time it was stolen on March 24^th, 2011. F.I.R. (Exhibit C-3) was registered in Police Station and the Insurance Company was informed.  The complainant submitted his claim before the Insurance Company.  The Insurance Company was ready to settle the claim as stated in paragraph No.7 of the reply, which reads as under:-

“7.     That in reply of para No.7 of the complaint it is submitted that the complainant did not provide second ignition key and he stated that the same was laying inside the truck at the time of alleged theft and hence the complainant had negligently remained left second ignition key inside the truck and left the vehicle unattended despite being aware of the fact that the second ignition key was negligently left inside the truck. The leaving of vehicle unattended under such circumstances directly contributed to the theft of the vehicle. Therefore the complainant has failed to take minimum reasonable step to safeguard the vehicle and the same is violation of policy terms and conditions. Despite the above facts the answering respondent was agreed to settle the claim of the complainant at 75% of the IDV as the same could not be treated as standard claim and could not be considered fit for settlement at full IDV. It is denied that the complainant ever met the answering respondent for submitting any documents. The complainant be put to strict proof of the same. It is submitted that answering respondents sent various letters to the complainant for completion of the requirements of claim but complainant has failed to comply with the required formalities and the answering respondents finally closed the claim of complainant vide letter dated 06.03.2014 for want of required formalities.”

7.      A reading of the above shows that the Insurance Company was ready to pay 75% of the IDV.

8.      The solitary submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the truck was left unattended because as per the letter Annexure A-1 purported to have been written by the complainant to the Insurance Company, one set of the ignition key was lying in the truck. In view of that, the Insurance Company was ready to pay 75% of the IDV on non-standard basis.

9.      This Commission does not concur with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. It has been specifically stated by the complainant in his statement (Annexure A-1) recorded by the surveyor that the truck was locked by its driver when he went to take dinner at 9.00 P.M.  The same version was given in the F.I.R. (Exhibit C-3).  This being so, the argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is repelled.

10.    In view of the above, it is established that the truck of the complainant was stolen and the Insurance Company wrongly repudiated claim. Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum requires no interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 02.11.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL