Haryana

StateCommission

A/353/2015

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHARAM PAL AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

D.C.KUMAR

10 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     353 of 2015

Date of Institution:     21.04.2015

Date of Decision :      10.08.2015

 

1.     The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Jawahar Market, Rohtak.

2.     The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Ambala Cantt.

         Both through Shri S.P. Singh, Regional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, LIC Building, II Floor, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt. 

                             Appellants-Opposite Parties No.1 and 2

Versus

 

1.      Shri Dharam Pal s/o Sh. Hukam Chand (since deceased) through his LRs:

i)        Smt. Kamlesh w/o late Sh. Dharam Pal

ii)       Manisha d/o late Sh. Dharam Pal

iii)      Minor Satender s/o late Sh. Dharam Pal

iv)      Minor Jitender s/o late Sh. Dharam Pal

all Residents of Village Garhi Sisana Sonepat, District Sonepat (minor Satender and Jitender through their real mother as a next friend and natural guardian Smt. Kamlesh complainant No.1.)

Respondents-Complainants

2.      ICICI Bank Limited, Rohtak, through its Manager.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Party No.3.

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri D.C. Kumar, Advocate for appellants.

Shri Hitesh K. Sammi, Advocate for respondent No.1-Complainant.

Respondent No.2 performa.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

By filing the instant appeal, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (for short the ‘Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties, have challenged the order dated March 12^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Rohtak, whereby an amount of Rs.10.00 lacs alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint, that is, July 27^th, 2009 till its realization was ordered to be paid to the complainants in respect of their insured truck, which was stolen during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses.

2.      Dharam Pal-since deceased (husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainants No.2 to 4) got his truck bearing registration No.HR-69/5825, insured with the Insurance Company for the period from April 15^th, 2007 to April 14^th, 2008, vide Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-12). The Insured Declared Value (for short ‘IDV’) was Rs.10.00 lacs.  During the intervening night of February 2^nd /3^rd,, 2008, the truck was stolen in the area of Transport Nagar, New Delhi. Immediate information was given to the Police Control Room on telephone No.100. The Police Control Room immediately flashed a V.T. message to all the Station House Officers, Incharge Police Posts and PCRs etc.  F.I.R. No.66 (Exhibit C-6) was lodged in Police Station, Samaipur Badli on February 15^th, 2008. The Insurance Company was also informed. The Police submitted untraced Report (Exhibit C-7) and the same was accepted by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi, vide order dated January 20^th, 2009 (Exhibit C/10). The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it repudiated the claim vide letter dated October 20^th, 2009 (Exhibit R-3), the extract of which is reproduced herein below:-

                   “Dear Sir,

This has reference to your above referred claim. In this regard we intend to write that the competent authority has repudiated your claim on the ground that due care was not taken at the time of theft and original ignition key was left in the vehicle which is a gross negligence on your part and violation of terms and conditions of our Motor Policy (condition No.5) which stipulates that all reasonable steps shall be taken to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in an efficient condition and the Company shall have at all the times free and full access to examine the vehicle ensured or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured.

As non-compliance of the above stated conditions has a direct bearing on the loss of the vehicle, we regret our inability to accept the liability”.

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

4.      The Insurance Company contested the complaint by reiterating the plea as stated in the repudiation letter (Exhibit R-3).

5.      After evaluating the evidence of the parties, District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the Insurance Company as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

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 documents in the truck.

7.      This Commission does not concur with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. F.I.R. (Exhibit C-6) is the best piece of evidence.  A perusal of the F.I.R. clearly shows that the truck was locked by its driver Ashok Kumar when it was stolen. F.I.R. also finds mention that Police was immediately informed on telephone regarding theft. Untraced Report (Exhibit C-7) was submitted by the Police. No plausible evidence was produced by the Insurance Company that the ignition key was left in the truck at the time of theft.  

8.      In view of the above, it is abundantly proved 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 respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 10.08.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL