1.      This Revision Petition No.910 of 2013 was filed under Section 21 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 08.03.2013 challenging the impugned order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (‘State Commission’) dated 19.09.2012. Vide this order, the learned State Commission allowed Appeal No.1054 of 2011. The said Appeal was filed against the order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (‘District Forum’) dated 22.06.2011. Vide this order, the District Forum, had directed the Respondents/OPs to reimburse the Complainant with the insured amount for the loss of insured vehicle with 8% interest from the date of this complaint within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of letter of repudiation dated 19.07.2010. OP is further directed to pay Rs.200/- to the complainant imposed upon OP vide order dated 29.3.2011 but not paid.

2.      As per the report form the Registry, there was a delay of 30 days in filing the Revision Petition. Vide order dated 20.03.2013, the said delay was condoned.

3.      The facts, in brief as per the Petitioner/Complainant, are that the Complainant insured his Truck No. HR 50E 2364 for the period from 02.07.2009 to 01.07.2010. The driver and the conductor of the truck on 22.07.2009 parked the truck near Guru Nanak Hospital, Palwal and went to sleep at some distance. The truck was stolen by some unknown person in the night. FIR was registered with P.S. Camp, Palwal and intimation of theft was also given to the insurance company.  A surveyor was appointed, who submitted his report. The insurance company, however, repudiated the claim.  Being aggrieved of the repudiation of the claim, the petitioner preferred a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum, Palwal.

4.      In their reply, the Respondent/ Opposite Party denied any deficiency in service on its part. It was contended that the insurance claim was rightly repudiated for the reason that the driver had left the truck unattended with bunch of the ignition keys in the driver’s cabin during night. The Respondent insurance company contended that the petitioner had violated condition No.5 of the policy.  It was claimed that the insured truck was left unattended during night with bunch of ignition keys in the driver’s cabin itself and that this fact was stated by the driver in a statement made to the surveyor. 

5.      The learned District Forum, Palwal vide order dated 22.06.2011 directed the Respondents/OPs to pay the insured amount for the loss of insured vehicle to the Complainant with 8% interest from the date of this complaint within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of letter of repudiation dated 19.07.2010. OP was further directed to pay Rs.200 to the Complainant vide order dated 29.3.2011, but not paid.

6.      On appeal, the State Commission vide impugned order concluded that the Complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as he failed to take reasonable care to protect the insured vehicle. Thus, in view of violation of condition No.5 of the policy, the State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint.  Relevant observations of the State Commission are reproduced thus:

“The perusal of the aforesaid condition no.5 of the insurance policy we find force in the contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant –opposite parties.  Admittedly, the claim submitted by the complainant was investigator of the company and during investigation it was found that the driver had left the ignition key of the vehicle in the ignition and left the vehicle unattended. Meaning thereby the complainant did not appropriate steps to safeguard the vehicle from any loss or damage.  Thus, the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

From the record it reveals that the driver of the truck has nowhere disclosed that he had kept the keys of the vehicle with him before going to asleep.  Thus, the report of surveyor cannot be disbelieved while leaving the vehicle un-attended.  Thus, it was a clear case of violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such the complainant is not entitled for any insurable benefits, in view of the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anoher 2011 CTJ 11 (Supreme Court) (CP) case (Supra) as under:       

“22.       Before embarking on an examination of the correctness of the grounds of repudiation of the policy, it would be apposite to examine the nature of a contract of insurance. It is trite that in a contract of insurance, the rights and obligations are governed by the terms of the said contract. Therefore, the terms of a contract of insurance have to be strictly construed, and no exception can be made on the ground of equity.”

“24.       Thus, it needs little emphasis that in construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount important, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risk covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavour of the court should always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties.”

The facts and circumstances of the instant case are fully attracted to Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. case (supra)

The District Consumer Forum has not appreciated the factual position on record and committed grave error while accepting the complaint of the complainant and as such the impugned order under challenge is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Accordingly, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.”

7.      This Commission, vide order dated 01.04.2014, dismissed the present Revision Petition with cost of Rs.25,000/-.

8.      Being aggrieved, the Petitioner/Complainant, challenging the order of this Commission dated 01.04.2014, filed a Civil Appeal No.14065 of 2015 (@ S.L.P. (C) No.23276 of 2014) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 04.12.2015, the Civil Appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to this Commission with the following observations:

“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the material available on record, the rival submissions advanced, findings and reasons recorded in the impugned judgment and order, in our considered view, the National Commission was required to examine the material evidence on record with reference to the case put forward by the appellant in the revision petition.

In view of the aforesaid reason, we do not accept the submission that the National Commission has decided the case on merits. In our considered opinion, the National Commission is required to reconsider the matter on merits.  Hence, the impugned judgment and final order is set aside, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the National Commission for considering the matter afresh and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

9.      The Petitioner/complainant has mentioned the following main grounds in filing of this Revision Petition:

(a) The Petitioner/Complainant has submitted the keys of the vehicle to the Respondents/Insurance Company at the time of investigation.

(b) Neither the date was mentioned on the identical statement of the Petitioner/Complainant and the driver as recorded nor do the said statements bear signatures or seal of the Surveyor which casts a doubt about its authenticity and genuineness.

(c) Nowhere in FIR has been mentioned that keys of the vehicle was stolen along with the truck.

(d) It cannot be said that every vehicle which is left unattended is liable to be stolen, even if the keys are left inside, they won’t be visible from outside unless a person enters a cabin.

10.    The learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Complainant is the owner of truck Registration No. HR50E-2364 and got his Truck insured with the Respondent vide Insurance Policy No.70043021 valid for the period from 02.07.2009 to 01.07.2010. The vehicle was stolen in the midnight on 22.07.2009, when it was parked near Guru Nanak Hospital, Palwal. The loss was informed immediately to the PS  Camp, Palwal on 23.07.2009 and FIR/DD No. 309 dated 28.07.2009 was registered. The Respondents were also informed and Claim No. 31604823 was filed by the Complainant. The Respondent appointed a surveyor to inspect the loss suffered by the Petitioner. It was alleged that, in the course of survey, the surveyor had sought signatures of the driver of the truck on blank papers under the pretext that it would help in immediate disbursal of claim. In addition, the Petitioner had submitted the keys of the vehicle with the Respondent, but no receipt was issued. In the report furnished by the surveyor dated 21.06.2010, based on an undated statement of the Petitioner and the Driver, it was stated that the truck driver had left the truck unattended and left the ignition keys inside the cabin. Further, the lock of the vehicle cabin was defective. Based on this report, the Respondents repudiated the insurance claim. On the Petitioner filing Complaint No. 472 of 2010 before the District Consumer Forum, Palwal, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint vide order dated 22.06.2011 and directed the Respondents to pay the insurance amount to the Complainant along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of complaint. The Respondents filed an Appeal before the learned State Commission wherein, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum vide order dated 19.02.2012, allowing the appeal. The State Commission failed to consider that the ignition keys of the truck were handed over to the Respondents, from which it is evident that the allegation of leaving the keys inside the cabin was untrue. The surveyor nowhere stated as to when and where the statements of the Driver and the Complainant were recorded. The District Forum observed that the statements recorded by the surveyor were undated. It was also not stated as to in whose presence they were recorded. Further, the statements of the Complainant and the Driver were not countersigned by each other. It was also observed by the District Forum that the statement of the Complainant was written by his son and whereas the statement of the Driver was recorded by an employee of the Insurer. However, the Insurance Company could neither give the details of the employee of the OPs who recorded the statement of the Driver nor an affidavit of such employee was filed. The learned Counsel reiterated that they signed on blank papers as sought by the surveyor, based on the promise made by the Surveyor that the claim would be settled expeditiously.  They also asserted that the keys of the vehicle were handed over to the OPs. He argued that the District Forum has rightly observed in detail as to why the alleged statements taken by the Surveyor cannot be relied upon.

11.    The learned Counsel for the Respondents argued that no material irregularity in the order of the learned State Commission.  There is negligence on the part of the Petitioner and the driver of the vehicle. The burden is on the Petitioner to prove his allegations in the complaint. He breached the conditions No.5 and 9 stipulated in the Insurance policy. He relied upon the following judgments:

(a) Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India, Appeal No. 432 of 2022 decided on 21.01.2022 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court;

(b) Megha Malhotra Vs. Dada Nissan, 2022 SCC OnLine NCDRC 733;

(c) Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ashish Kumar Walecha, 2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1045;

(d) Shakuntla Dev Vs. Reliance General Insurance & Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 2500;

(e) Arjun Lal Jat Vs. HDFC Irgo Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2014 SCC OnLine NCDRC 336;

(f) Adseh Kumar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine NCDRC 215;

(g) Polymat India (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2005) 9 SCC 174: 2004 SCC OnLine SC 1511;

(h) CICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Adam Suleman Durvesh, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 95.

12.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful attention to the arguments advanced by learned Counsels for both the parties.

13.    As regards the contention ‘whether there is a violation of condition No.5 of the Insurance Policy in question, the said condition No.5 is as under:

“5.       The Insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from any 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 an employee of the Insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precaution 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.”

14.    The issue in question is whether the Complainant had taken necessary care of the vehicle in question in compliance of condition No. 5 of the Insurance Policy. The Complainant repeatedly asserted that, after the vehicle theft on 22.07.2009 was reported, the vehicle ignition keys were handed over to the Respondents. The circumstances under which the vehicle was stolen in the midnight on 22.07.2009, when it was parked near Guru Nanak Hospital, Palwal were informed to the insurer and reported to civil police on 23.07.2009. After the claim was filed, the Respondent appointed a surveyor to inspect the loss. During survey, the surveyor took signatures of the Complainant and the driver on blank papers under the pretext that it would help in immediate disbursal of claim. In addition, the Petitioner submitted the keys of the vehicle with the Respondent, but no receipt was issued.

15.    It is the contention of the Respondent/Insurer that the vehicle in question was not secured and that the ignition keys of the vehicle were left inside the cabin and further the cabin door was defective making it easy to access and steal. The Respondents forcefully contended that adequate care that is necessary in terms of the Condition No.5 of the Insurance Policy was not taken. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim was appropriate. On the other hand, it has been specific contention of the Petitioner that immediately after loss of vehicle on 27.07.2009 the insurer was informed and the Police were also notified vide DD/FIR was filed on 28.07.2009. Based on the claim filed, the Respondent had appointed a surveyor. The Surveyor obtained statements of the driver and the Petitioner and, thereafter, filed a report on 21.06.2010 and informed that the loss of insured truck in the night on 22.07.2009 is genuine. The Respondents repudiated the claim vide letter dated 19.07.2010 stating violation of Condition No.5 of the subject insurance policy that the driver failed to secure the vehicle and had left the ignition keys in the vehicle itself, which is false. The Complainant asserted that this claim is based on an alleged statement of the driver recorded by the surveyor during the investigation. It was specifically alleged by the Complainant that the signatures of the Complainant and the driver were obtained on blank papers by the Surveyor. Further, they asserted that the ignition keys were already handed over to the Insurer Company. The learned District Forum observed that the statements recorded by the Surveyor were undated. It was not stated as to in whose presence they were recorded and the statements of the Driver and the Complainant were not countersigned by each other. It was also observed that the statement of the Complainant was written by his son, whereas the statement of the Driver was recorded by an employee of the Insurer. However, the Insurance Company could neither give the details of the employee of the OPs who recorded the statement of the Driver nor an affidavit of such employee was filed. The complainant alleged that they signed blank papers as sought, based on the promise made by the Surveyor that the claim would be settled expeditiously. They also asserted that the keys of the vehicle were handed over to the OPs.  Notwithstanding the fact that these contentions were refuted by the OP, the matter still remains that, this is a case of allegations and counter allegations pertaining to the ignition keys of the truck and obtaining signatures on blank papers.

16.    Notwithstanding the same, it was the OPs who claimed that the ignition keys were in fact left in the vehicle and repudiated the claim, based on the same. Therefore, the onus to prove the same is also on the OPs, which has not been done. Thus, this contention stands ‘not proved’ by the Respondent/Insurance Company. Even if there is some ambiguity in this regard, the benefit if doubt goes to the Insured. Therefore, the repudiation of claim on the grounds that the ignition keys were left in the cabin is untenable, as the same is unsubstantiated. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled for the insurance claim as per the Insurance Policy.

17.    In view of the foregoing discussions, the order of the learned State Commission dated 19.09.2012 in F.A. No.1054 of 2011 is set aside and the order of the learned District Forum dated 22.06.2011 in CC No. 472/RBT No. 260 is upheld. 

18.    Consequently, the Revision Petition No.910 OF 2013 is allowed.

19.    All pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of.