DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Ritesh Naredi, son of Ajay Kumar Naredi, r/o # 6177, Modern Housing Complex, Mani Majra, UT Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

Bharti AXA General Insurance Company, office at 1^st Floor, SCO 350-351-352, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

                      ……Opposite Party

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                  PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

         DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Hitesh Pandit, Counsel for Complainant.

          Sh.Tajender K.Joshi, Counsel for OP.      

PER P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT

         As per averments made in the complaint, the complainant is owner of the Vehicle No.CH-03Z-0136 make Toyota Inova Model 2007, comprehensively insured with the OP for the period 23.3.2010 to 22.3.2011 on payment of premium of Rs.17644/-. On 18.11.2010, Mr.Kuldeep Singh, Driver of the vehicle, came to Delhi alongwith some senior officials of the company of complainant, as they had to attend a wedding ceremony. After completion of marriage, the driver of the vehicle dropped one person at Live-In Hotel, Loha Mandi and went to drop two persons at ISBT. While returning from ISBT, the driver of the vehicle lost his way, but some how he reached back at the venue of the wedding, but by that time, everyone had departed from there.

         It is alleged that while the driver was enquiring the route, two persons who were returning from the same wedding, approached him and asked to give them a lift with the assurance that they knew the route and would guide him to reach the destination. The driver agreed to this, one of them sat in the front passenger seat while the other sat in the rear seat. When they reached near Janak Puri, B-1 Block, Petrol Plump, they asked the driver to stop the vehicle for answering nature call. On stopping, the person sitting on the rear seat and driver of vehicle came out. As the other person was still sitting in the vehicle, the driver left the keys in the vehicle. It is the case of the Complainant that the person who was relieving came back and started the vehicle and drove away in the fast speed before the driver could chase it. The driver shouted for help but no one was there to help him. After this incident, FIR No.273, dated 19.10.2010 was registered at Police Station Janak Puri Delhi West. The Police investigated the matter, but failed to found the vehicle and filed untraceable report. The complainant filed the claim with the OP, but shocked to read vide letter dated 4.4.2011 from the OP that his claim was repudiated as he had violated the condition No.4 of the Motor Policy, which the complainant was not aware nor OP disclosed any such condition. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service.

2.       OP appeared and filed reply. It has been stated that driver of the vehicle had not only given a lift to two unknown persons but had also left the key in the ignition of the vehicle. His failure to remove the key from the ignition gave ample opportunity for the miscreants to take away the vehicle and this is an act of gross negligence on the part of the driver of the complainant and a breach of condition No.4 of the policy. The insured failed to take all the possible steps to safeguard the vehicle from any loss or damages and violated the condition No.4 of the insurance policy and as such the OP rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 4.4.2011.

         It is denied that complainant was not aware of the policy condition. It has been pleaded that policy guidelines alongwith the detail of the insurance coverage alongwith the policy documents were sent to the complainant vide letter dated 22.3.2010. In view of the above submissions, it is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with cost.

3.       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5.       The learned counsel for the Complainant submitted that the copy of the insurance policy, along with terms and conditions has not been supplied to him by the OP-Insurance Company; therefore, the OP cannot raise a plea that there is violation of Condition No.4 of the terms and conditions of the policy. Per contra, the OP Insurance Company, while filing reply, had categorically stated that the Policy, along with terms and conditions, have duly been supplied to the Complainant. To prove the said fact, the Complainant has not produced any other evidence, except his self- serving affidavit, which is not sufficient to prove that the OP-insurance company had supplied the insurance policy, along with terms and conditions, to him, especially, when the OP had specifically replied that the insurance policy, along with terms & conditions have been supplied to the Complainant and the said fact is supported by the affidavit of authorized signatory of the OP - Insurance Company.

6.       The Counsel for the Complainant submitted that since comprehensive insurance policy had been taken, by the Complainant, in respect of his car, loss of the same, even on account of the negligence of the complainant, was covered thereunder. He further submitted that repudiation, on the part of the Insurance Company, of the claim of the complainant, only on the ground, that he had not taken reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle, by leaving the key in the ignition of the vehicle, resulting into theft of the same, was illegal and arbitrary.

7.       On the other hand, the Counsel for the OP Insurance Company submitted that the driver of the vehicle was utterly negligent and careless in taking reasonable steps, to safeguard the vehicle, against any loss and damage, and as such, in view of condition No.4 of the terms and conditions of the policy, the OP was right, in repudiating his claim. 

8.       There is, no dispute, with regard to the factum that the complainant got his vehicle insured with OP comprehensively.  It is settled principle of law, that the contract of insurance is based on good faith.  The parties to such a contract are bound by the terms and conditions, contained therein.  Annexure C-1 is the copy of the motor vehicle insurance proposal and cover note, which was purchased by the complainant, in respect of his car. Condition No.4 of the policy, reads as under :-

          “4.  The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from any loss or damages and to maintain in efficient condition and company shall have full excess of vehicle or part there of or any employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, vehicle shall not left unattended without proper precautions to be taken to prevent further loss or damage and if the vehicle is driven before necessary repairs, the extension of damages and further damages shall be at insured’s risk.”

9.       Now from a plain reading of condition No.4, referred to above, it is evident that the insured was required to take all reasonable steps to safeguard his vehicle against loss and damage and to maintain it in an efficient condition.  As stated above, the complainant was bound by this condition of the policy. In the instant case, the complainant himself admitted that he left the ignition key of the car, as a result whereof; the same was stolen on 18.11.2010.  It means that the complainant left the car unattended. To such an unattended car, could easily attract any thief.  The complainant, therefore, did not take reasonable steps to safeguard the car against loss or damage. The complainant himself was negligent.  It was on account of violation of the condition aforesaid of the policy, on the part of the complainant, that the loss occurred. The OP was, thus, justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. Reliance placed on United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Maya, 2008 CTJ 580 (CP) (NCDRC), wherein the claim of the insured was repudiated on the ground, that proper care had not been taken, to safeguard the truck, by leaving it unattended, with its ignition key, on the dashboard. The ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case is fully applicable to the facts of the instant appeal.

10.      As result of the above discussion, in our considered opinion, the claim of the Complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OP Insurance Company. This being so, there is neither any deficiency of service, nor indulgence in any unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. As such, we dismiss the complaint. However, the respective parties shall bear their own costs.

11.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.