STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No  :         99 of 2015

Date of Institution:        27.01.2015

Date of Decision :        18.02.2015

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Bahadurgarh (Haryana) through Sh. Ravinder K. Jain, Regional manager, Regional Office, S.C.O. No36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh duly constituted attorney.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

Arun Kumar s/o Sh. Jai Kishan, Resident of Village and Post Office Barahai, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Advocate for appellant.

                                                   O R D E R

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The New India Assurance Company Limited-Opposite Party (for short ‘the Insurance Company’) is in appeal against the order dated December 24^th, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Jhajjar, whereby complaint filed by Arun Kumar-complainant (respondent herein) seeking compensation with respect to his car, which was stolen during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy, was accepted. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“…….We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay the insured amount as per policy Ex.R-2 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of loss i.e. 10.10.2010 till realization of final payment to the complainant subject to transfer of R.C. of vehicle in question in the name of respondent insurance company by the complainant. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent”.   

2.      The respondent-complainant got his car bearing registration No.HR-63BT-1144, insured with the Insurance Company vide Insurance Policy Exhibit R-2, for the period from August 12^th, 2010 to August 11^th, 2011. The Insured Declared Value of the car was Rs.2,94,000/-. The car was stolen in the area of ‘Guru Dronacharya Metro Station’ on October 10^th, 2010. He informed the Police immediately. The Police of Police Station Fatehpur Beri South Delhi, recorded F.I.R.No.229 under Section 379 I.P.C. on October 12^th, 2010. The Insurance Company was also informed. The respondent-complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the Insurance Company did not pay the insured amount.

3.      The respondent-complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      The Insurance Company-opposite party contested complaint by filing reply wherein it denied complainant’s claim stating that:-

(i)      The car was stolen on October 10^th, 2010 whereas F.I.R. was lodged after two days, that is, October 12^th, 2010 (violation of condition No.1 of the Insurance Policy).     

(ii)      Route permit for car was issued for Haryana State only whereas the car was being driven in the area of Delhi in violation of Sub-section-I of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicle Act (for short ‘M.V.Act’).

(ii)      The car was left un-attended by leaving the ignition key in the car, violating condition No.5 of the Insurance Policy.

(iv)    Ajay Kumar-driver of the car was holding driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) whereas the car was registered as Motor Cab/Car Taxi, that is, Light Transport Vehicle (LTV) and thus violation of Section-66 of the M.V. Act.  

5.      The District Forum vide impugned order allowed the complaint and issued direction as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy as well as the provisions of the M.V. Act and therefore was not entitled for any insurable benefits.

7.      The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is baseless. So far as delay of two days in lodging of the F.I.R., this Commission in Shriram General Insurance Company Limited versus Rajesh Kumar, 2014(2) CLT 390 while referring to the circular dated September 20^th, 2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) held that the ground of delay in lodging of the FIR and late intimation to the Insurance Company, was not justified to repudiate claimant’s claim.

8.      So for as the other pleas raised on behalf of the appellant are concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2003 6 SCC 420, held as under:-

"9. The question then is; can the Insurance Company repudiate a claim made by the owner of the vehicle which is duly insured with the company, solely on the ground that the driver of the vehicle who had nothing to do with the accident did not hold a valid licence? The answer to this question, in our opinion, should be in the negative. Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on which reliance was placed by the State Commission, in our opinion, does not come to the aid of the Insurance Company in repudiating a claim where the driver of the vehicle had not contributed in any manner to the accident. Section 149(2)(1)(ii) of the Motor Vehicle Act empowers the Insurance Company to repudiate a claim wherein the vehicle in question is damaged due to an accident to which driver of the vehicle who does not hold a valid driving licence is responsible in any manner. It does not empower the Insurance Company to repudiate a claim for damages which has occurred due to acts to which the driver has not, in any manner, contributed i.e. damages incurred due to reasons other than the act of the driver.

10. It is the case of the parties that the fire in question which caused damage to the vehicle occurred due to mechanical failure and not due to any fault or act, or omission of the driver. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Insurance Company could not have repudiated the claim of the appellant."

9.      Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh in (2004) 3 SCC 297 held as under:-

"89……If on facts, it is found that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with the driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence."

10.    It is not disputed that in the instant case, the car was stolen.  In view of law settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in Jitendra Kumar’s case (Supra) and Swaran Singh’s case (Supra), in the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane. So, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the car when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insured.

11.    In view of the above, the Insurance Company was not justified in denying complainant’s claim. So, the impugned order does not require any interference.

12.    Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

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

CL