The instant Complaint # 420/2016 was first filed on 16.10.2014 with the original allotted index number of 391/2014 along with the statutory application U/s 24A (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; for condonation of delay for a period of 724 days that was duly allowed by the forum’s orders of 13.01.2015. The opposite party insurers having fallen aggrieved at the above orders preferred the Appeal # 213/ 2015 with the honorable State Commission, Punjab; who were pleased to allow the same vide its orders dated 03.12.2015. However, the complainant challenged the above appellate orders vide his Revision Petition # 1056/2016 before the honorable National Commission, New Delhi; who again restored the forum’s original orders allowing the condonation of delay vide its orders dated 04.11.2016 and thus prompted the remanded complaint with effect from 19.12.2016, under the current adjudicatory orders.
Brief facts:
The complainant Jaspal Singh has been an agriculturist tiller with ‘small farmer’ land holding in the revenue district of Gurdaspur (Punjab) and owned one Mahindra Arjun (Red Color) Tractor with RC # PB 18 N 0998 with finance availed from the Amritsar Branch of ICICI Bank Ltd., and got it comprehensively insured from its corporate associates opposite party1 insurer. Somehow, on the evening of 14.07.2009 the complainant while on his way back home from Batala did suffer sick and laid down on the road-side by the side of his parked Tractor and allegedly fell asleep (lost consciousness). He was shocked upon getting up-awake to find that his Tractor had been stolen during the short-break. On the very next day, he filed the police FIR and also intimated the insurers of the theft and also filed the requisite insurance theft claim with all the necessary papers to somewhat recover the total loss incurred by the theft of the insured Tractor. However, the opposite party insurers did repudiate his insurance claim alleging that the complainant had violated the terms of insurance policy by being negligent in taking proper care of the Tractor by not removing its lock ignition key while parking the Tractor right on the road-side on the fateful evening and thus prompted the present complaint.
2. The titled opposite party insurers upon notice appeared through their counsel contesting the complaint firstly on the issue of ‘delay’ that somehow stands duly resolved as discussed in the opening paragraph, above. And, presently the second and last as well as the lone issue left out for present resolve is that of the violation of the policy terms by way of non-observance of due care and caution towards security of the insured Tractor. The OP insurers have openly alleged that the theft has been the result of negligence on the part of the complainant displayed through non-removal of the ignition lock-key by the complainant at the time of parking the Tractor on the road-side.
3. We observe that both the litigating sides have produced their respective documents to adduce their respective evidence to support/prove their respective allegations, averments and rebuttals etc. The complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.C1 deposing his allegations as made out in the complaint; Ex.C2 the repudiation letter of 22.10.2010; Ex.C3 the related insurance policy cover; Ex.C4 the insurer letter requisitioning documents; Ex.C5 the FIR; Ex.C6 the RC of the stolen Tractor; Ex.C7 the untraceable report; Ex.C8 the legal notice by the financing Bank and its legal replies etc; and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, the OP insurers have produced its affidavit by Manoj Mehra duly deposing its averments and rebuttals etc; Ex.OP2 the copy of complainant’s affidavit deposing that the Tractor’s Lock ignition key was not removed upon parking; Ex.OP3 the repudiation letter dated 22.10.2012; Ex.OP4 the applicable insurance policy cover and finally Ex.OP5 the details of the commercial vehicles package policy to close the evidence.
5. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for of some documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute prompted at the rebuttal of the complainant’s theft total-loss claim’s delayed repudiation by the OP insurers alleging ‘violation’ of the policy terms only on the one count of non-removal of the ignition lock key at the time of the parking of the Tractor on the road side on the fateful evening. We find that the complainant had to park the Tractor on the road-side not out of choice but out of compulsion since he had been taken suddenly ill on the fateful evening and had to lie down on the road-side after stopping his tractor on the road-side itself and in the emergency to lie down he could not even take out the Tractor’s ignition lock key. It has not been a matter of routine that the complainant should have laid himself on the road side by first parking his vehicle after fully securing it by removing the ignition lock key. It had been an emergency (must have been some ailment emergency) that compelled the complainant to lie down emergently on the road side and lost consciousness and in the mean time the Tractor got stolen. The OP insurers must understand that the insured do purchase the indemnity policy for such types of emergency eventualities etc.
6. We further find that the complainant has duly submitted all the necessary documents as produced herein on the records of the present proceedings so as to enable the OP insurers to settle the impugned claim. On the other hand, the insurers here have preferred to repudiate the otherwise a valid claim on the flimsy alibi of violation of policy terms on the trivial issue of non-removal of the ignition lock-key by the complainant. There has been no evidence on record that the Tractor could not have been started/stolen with its ignition lock key duly removed from its working-place on the Tractor Glove Board. It is also commonly known that the Tractors are towed for quite long distances when stolen away from the place of parking etc. Even assuming the breach of condition of the insurance policy, the OP’s insurance company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the sum insured. The insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft. Thus, we find no truth in the alleged violation of the applicable policy terms; rather we see it as an adoption of unfair trade practice to repudiate an otherwise a valid insurance claim and that rakes them up to an adverse statutory award.
7. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP insurers to settle and pay the impugned insurance on non- standard basis i.e. 75% of the sum insured (but duly limited by the terms of the related Policy) to the complainant besides to pay him Rs 5,000/- as cost and compensation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA form the date of the orders till actual payment.
Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
JAN. 24, 2017 Member.
*YP*
