BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint No.191 of 2013
Date of instt. 18.04.2013 Date of decision:20.02.2015
Sarwan Kumar son of Sh.Mange Ram resident of MSK Road, near Sisoli Bus stand, Shamli, District Shamli (Uttar Pardesh).
……..Complainant.
Vs.
1. 2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited,2nd Floor,SCO No.253, Sector 12, near City Centre, Karnal through its Branch Manager.
2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Ist Floor, SCO No.24-25, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, near Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai (Maharashtra) through Chief Manager.
4.Globe Karnal, GT Road Opposite PTC Madhuban Karnal (Haryana)through its Manager.
……Opposite parties.
Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act.
Before Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.
Sh.Subhash Chander Sharma……Member.
Present:- Sh.S.S.Chauhan Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Vinod Sharma, Advocate for the OP No.1 to 3.
Sh.Nirmal Sharma Advocate for OP No.4.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that the complainant had purchased one Innova Car make Toyota Kirloskar Motors bearing chasis No. MBJ11JV4007341641 Engine No.2KD6982592 from OP No.4 and got the same insured from OP No.1 to 3 vide policy/certificate No. TIL/10059473 valid from 2.7.2012 till 01.07.2013. The said car was stolen on 7.9.2012 from the area of Police Station Sector 24, Noida District Gautam Budha Nagar UP and FIR No.467 dated 8.9.2012 u/s 379 IPC was registered. At the time of theft Sh.Sunil Kumar cousin brother of the complainant had gone with the said vehicle at Noida. Thereafter, complainant gave information regard the theft of the vehicle to the Ops and lodged the claim with the Ops and supplied all the relevant papers but the Ops kept postponing the matter on one pretext or the other and failed to pay the claim amount which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. The complainant has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contents of the complaint alongwith some other documents.
2. On notice the Ops no.1 to 3 appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections that the present complaint was not maintainable; that the complaint was not legally maintainable; that the complainant was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands etc.
On merits purchase of the vehicle and its insurance has not been denied by the OP No.1 to 3.However, during investigation it came to the knowledge of the answering Ops that at the time of theft one Sunil Kumar was driving the vehicle in question and had parked the vehicle and had gone to answer the call of nature by leaving the key of the vehicle inside the vehicle and when after some time said Sunil Kumar came back, the vehicle was found stolen and as such sufficient care was not taken which a prudent man ought to have taken and as such the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated. Thus, it was contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and dismissal of the complaint was sought.
The OP No.4 in its written statement has contended that the answering OP No.4 was not a consumer qua the complainant and as such the complaint was not maintainable. It was also contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of answering OP No.4 and dismissal of the complaint was sought.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.
4. From the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, it emerges that complainant had purchased one Innova Car bearing chassis No. MBJ11JV4007341641 Engine No.2KD6982592 from OP No.4 and got the same insured from OP No.1 to 3 vide policy Ex.C4 valid from 2.7.2012 till 01.07.2013. The said car was stolen on 7.9.2012 from the area of Police Station Sector 24, Noida District Gautam Budha Nagar UP and FIR No.467 dated 8.9.2012 u/s 379 IPC Ex.O5 was registered. The complainant gave information regardibg theft of the vehicle to the Ops and lodged the claim with the Ops and supplied all the relevant papers but the claim of the complainant has been repudiated vide letter Ex.O1.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the leaving of key in the ignition is not fatal to the present case and the claim has wrongly been repudiated by the Ops. He has placed reliance on the law laid down in cases Sukhwinder Singh Versus Cholamandalam IV 2013 CPJ 218 NC.New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs.Mukesh Sehgal 2009(1) CPC page 548, OIC Versus Parvesh Chander Chadha 2009 CPC page 55 and Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs.Sri Avvn Ganesh 2012 CPC Page 681.
6. However, it was argued on behalf of the Ops no.1 to 3 that claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated as the complainant had left the key in ignition of vehicle and has committed breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated vide Ex.O1. Reliance has been placed on the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in case Satpal Versus United India InsuranceCo.Ltd.and Ors. 2013 3 CPC page 518 and Surender Vs. NIC 2013 2 CPC page 137. Reliance has also been placed on the law laid down in case Ramesh Chandra Meghwanshi Vs. The OIC Ltd. Revision petition No.793 of 2014 order dated 6.2.2015.
7. . Therefore, after going through the circumstances of the case and the evidence on the file that the vehicle bearing chassis MBJ11JV4007341641 engine No.2KD6982592 was insured with the OP vide insurance policy Ex.C4 valid w.e.f. 2.7.2012 to 1.7.2013 the said vehicle was stolen on 7.9.2012 from the area of Noida District Gautam Budha Nagar UP when the driver of the said car had gone to answer the call of nature regarding which FIR No. 467 dated 8.9.2012 Ex.C5 was registered and the untraced report Ex.C1 was issued by the court. The claim was lodged by the complainant with the OP but they repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the driver of the said vehicle had left the key in the ignition and left the vehicle unattended which amounts to breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the authorities relied upon by the Ops, the claim has been repudiated. However, the Hon,ble Apex Court in Amalendu Sahoo Vs.OIC Civil Appeal no.2703 of 2010 has held that in such like cases the claim can be granted on non standard basis and has laid down the guide lines for granting compensation on non standard basis . Hon,ble National Commission has also taken the same view in case OIC Ltd. Versus Parvesh Chaander Chadha 2009 1 CPC Page 55. Therefore, in view of the guide lines laid down in Amalendu Shaoo,s case Supra and the Hon,ble National Commission in OIC Ltd.,s case Supra we deem it proper to grant compensation on the basis of non standard basis to the extent of 75% of the admissible claim.
8. Therefore, in view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops No.1 to 3 to make the payment of 75% of the admissible claim to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 18.4.2013 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/ as compensation for the harassment caused to him and a sum of Rs.2200/ towards legal fee and the litigation expenses. The Ops No.1 to 3 shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
20.02.2015. (Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
Present:- Sh.S.S.Chauhan Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Vinod Sharma, Advocate for the OP No.1 to 3.
Sh.Nirmal Sharma Advocate for OP No.4.
Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
20.02.2015. (Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
