STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No.173 of 2010)

Jaswinder Singh s/o Sh. Sardar Singh r/o #1273, Phase-9, Mohali, Punjab.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

1.                 IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., having its registered office at IIFFCO Sadan, C1, Distt. Centre, Saket, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

2.                 ITGI-Strategic Business Unit, IFFCO Complex, Plot No.2 (B&C), Sector 28A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

3.                 ICICI Bank Ltd., SCO 9 to 11, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:      HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Yogesh K. Rattan, Adv. for the appellant.

                   Sh. Tejender K. Joshi, Adv.  for the respondents No.1 & 2

                   Sh. Vivek Mohan, Adv. proxy for Sh. Rajiv Sharma, Adv. for respondent No.3

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.                           This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.03.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.                           The complainant got his car comprehensively insured from OPs 1 & 2 (now respondents) for all risks, which also covered loss and damage to the vehicle, due to man made and natural calamities, for the period from 14.12.2007 to 13.12.2008. The car was hypothecated with OP-3. On 23.6.2008, the complainant unfortunately forgot the keys of his car on the roof of the same, as a result whereof, on the night of 23/24.6.2008, he found that his car was missing from the spot where it was parked.  He lodged an FIR on 24.6.2008 at Police Station Safidon. The vehicle could not be traced by the police and untraced report was submitted. The complainant alongwith untraced report approached OPs 1 & 2 for the insurance claim for the theft of his car, but the same was repudiated on the ground that the complainant himself had not taken steps to safeguard his car as he had forgotten the keys of vehicle on the roof of the same.  It was stated that the acts of the OPs amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed. 

3.                           OPs 1 & 2 in their written reply, admitted that the car of the complainant was comprehensively insured by them, for the period referred to above.  It was stated that on receipt of the claim from the complainant, a surveyor had been appointed, for verification and assessment of loss, who verified the actual facts and recorded the statement of the complainant.  It was further stated that the complainant, in his statement, himself, admitted that he had forgotten the keys of the car, on the roof thereof, while parking the same, and on the night intervening 23/24.6.2008, the same was stolen.  It was further stated that, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the insured was required to take all reasonable steps, to safeguard the vehicle, against loss and damage.  It was further submitted that the words ‘reasonable steps’ meant those steps which an ordinary prudent person would have taken in similar circumstances.  It was further stated that, in the instant case, the complainant had himself left the ignition key of the car on the roof of the same and, as such, the said vehicle was unattended.  It was further stated that since the complainant was grossly negligent and had not taken reasonable care to safeguard his vehicle against loss and damage, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance and, as such, his claim was rightly repudiated.  It was further stated that OPs 1 & 2 were not deficient, in rendering service, nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong. 

4.                           OP-3 was duly served, but none appeared, on its behalf, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte. 

5.                           After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and on going through the evidence on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint, as stated above.

6.                           Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.                           We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence on record of the case carefully. 

8.                           The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that since comprehensive insurance policy had been taken, by the appellant, 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 ignition key on the roof thereof, resulting into theft of the same, was illegal and arbitrary.  He further submitted that the complainant was entitled to the compensation, but the District Forum was completely wrong in dismissing the complaint. 

9.                           On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent submitted that since the complainant himself admitted that he was utterly negligent and careless in taking reasonable steps, to safeguard his vehicle, against any loss and damage, and as such, in view of condition No.4 of the terms and conditions of the policy, the OPs were right, in repudiating his claim.  It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

10.                       After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in our considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. There is, no dispute, with regard to the factum that the complainant got his vehicle insured with OPs 1 & 2 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 R-3 is the copy of the comprehensive insurance policy, which was purchased by the complainant, in respect of his car.  There is also no dispute, about the factum, that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were duly supplied, to the complainant, at the time of issuance of the insurance policy. Condition No.4 of the policy, under the head ‘Deductible’, reads as under :-

                   “4.     The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the Company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured.  In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk.

11.                       Under the head ‘Deductible’, mentioned in the policy, under which condition No.4 finds place, it is in clear-cut terms recited that the Company shall not be liable for each and every claim under Section – I (loss of or damage to the vehicle insured) of this policy in respect of the deductible stated in the schedule.  From the plain reading of condition No.4, extracted 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, though inadvertently, on the roof thereof, while parking the same, as a result whereof, the same was stolen on the night intervening 23/24.6.2008.  It means that the complainant left the car unattended.  To such an unattended car, the ignition key whereof was left on the roof of the same, any thief could be easily attracted.  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 OPs were, thus, justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OPs, nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice.   In United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Maya, 2008 CTJ 580 (CP) (NCDRC), 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 and that the validity of the driving licence of the driver was also in dispute.  The District Forum allowed the complaint and awarded Rs.one lac alongwith compensation. The State commission turned down the appeal of the Insurance Company.  However, in the revision petition, filed by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in the aforesaid case, the orders of the District Forum, and the State Commission, were set aside.  The ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case is fully applicable to the facts of the instant appeal.

12.                       In view of the above, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 

13.                       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merits, must fail and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.3,000/-.

14.                       Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

3^rd May 2011.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER