Haryana

StateCommission

A/671/2015

UNIER4SAL SOMPO GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHANDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

SAHIL ABHI

20 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      671 of 2015

Date of Institution:      14.08.2015

Date of Decision :       20.10.2215

 

Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, Head Office at Unit 401, 4^th Floor, Sangam Complex, 127, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Chander Singh s/o Sh. Har Chandi, Resident of House No.692, Village Chandhat Tehsil and District Palwal (Haryana).

Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office at SCO 39 and 40, 1^st Floor, above Union Bank, Sector 31, Gurgaon.

 

3.      Deepak Kataria Insurance Consultant Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited Office Sidhdata Tyres, Sidhata Associates near Hotel Highway Bye Pass Road, Palwal-121102.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties No.2 & 3

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                

Present:               Shri Sahil Abhi, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Chirag Kundu, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Service of respondents No.2 and 3 is dispensed with.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated May 19^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (for short ‘District Forum’).

2.      Chander Singh-complainant-respondent No.1 got his truck, bearing Registration No. HR-47/8940, insured with the Insurance Company, from February 22^nd, 2012 to February 21^st, 2013, vide Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-10). The Insured Declared Value (for short ‘IDV’) was Rs.3,50,000/-. During the intervening night of February 12^th/13^th, 2013, the truck was stolen in the area of Palwal. Information was given to the Police Control Room on telephone No.100. The Police Control Room flashed a V.T. message to all the Station House Officers, Incharge Police Posts and PCRs etc.  F.I.R. No.70 (Exhibit C-2) was lodged in Police Station, Camp Palwal on March 3^rd, 2013. The Insurance Company was also informed. The Police submitted untraced Report (Exhibit C-4) and the same was accepted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palwal, vide order dated July 15^th, 2013. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it repudiated the claim vide letter dated November 9^th, 2013 (Annexure O-22), the extract of which is reproduced herein below:-

 “We have perused the pertinent claim documents submitted by you alongwith the Investigation Report of the independent investigator appointed for investigation of the loss and note that on perusal of the investigation report, we observe that on perusal of the survey report, we observe that your driver had left the ignition key in dashboard of vehicle and also Left cabin door lock is not fitted in your vehicle driver had went away leaving the vehicle unlocked and unattended. This act violated the Terms and conditions of the Policy which clearly states that “The Insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition.

In view of the foregoing, we sincerely regret that we are unable to consider this claim. If however, should you believe that we have overlooked any material facts or circumstances, or should you wish to present an alternative interpretation supported with documents, please draw the same to our attention for review afresh.”

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

4.      The Insurance Company contested the complaint by filing reply reiterating the ground taken in the repudiation letter.

5.      After evaluating the evidence of the parties, District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.3,00,000/- at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization jointly and severally; to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of sufferings due to mental agony etc and Rs.2100/- litigation expenses to the complainant.

6.      The solitary submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the truck was stolen due to the negligence of its driver because he left the ignition key and the cabin door lock key in the truck.

7.      The submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not convincing.  In the report of the Surveyor, it has not been stated that from where he gathered that key was left in the cabin of the truck.  It is the case of the driver, as mentioned in the F.I.R, that after locking the truck he went to his house.  This being so, the argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is repelled.  

8.      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.

9.      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 20.10.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL