DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .
Complaint No. 503
Instituted on: 18.09.2019
Decided on: 18.01.2024
Kiranpal Singh Chauhan son of Hardiai Chand, resident of H.No.110, Street No.6A, Ram Basti, Ward No.2 Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office: 2nd Floor, Above Hotel Hot Chop, Kaula Park Market, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.
….Opposite party
QUORUM
JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT
SARITA GARG : MEMEBR
KANWALJEET SINGH : MEMBER
For the complainant : Shri Satvir Singh Mander Adv.
For the Ops : Shri Bhushan Kumar Garg,Advocate
ORDER
KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER
1. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a registered owner of the Activa 5G scooter bearing no.PB -13BB-8426. The above said Activa was got insured from the Op vide policy number 1-QC5YC4A valid from 06.04.2018 to 05.04.2019. The complainant paid the premium of Rs.1287/- to the OP. The IDV of the said Activa was Rs.51476/-. On 23.04.2018 the complainant went to Obroei Photostat situated at Civil Hospital, Sangrur and parked his Active outside the shop. The complainant went into the shop. When the complainant came back from the shop then the complainant found that the Activa was not present at the place where he parked the same. Then the complainant tried his best to find his Activa but all in vain. The police of PS, City, Sangrur lodged the FIR no.141 dated 10.05.2018 under Section 379 under the IPC. At the time of theft the Activa of the complainant was not registered with the Registering Authority being new one. Later on registration number was allotted to the complainant. The opposite party appointed the surveyor who obtained the signatures of the complainant on various documents and on blank papers and took some documents from the complainant for release of the claim. The complainant handed over the original key of the Activa to the surveyor on his demand. The complainant has lastly prayed that the Op may kindly directed to release the insurance amount of Rs.51476/- alongwith interest @18%per annumn from the date of theft of Activa till realization and to pay Rs. 50000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party appeared and filed written version, taking preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The key of the vehicle was left in the ignition switch and the insured did not take reasonable care of the insured vehicle and his negligence was the sole reason for the theft of the insured vehicle. On merits, the OP submitted that the complainant got his vehicle in question insured from the OP subject to terms and conditions of the policy and rest of the averments are denied as false. The complainant has given the intimation to the OP with delay of seven days i.e. 30.04.2018. The complainant has breached the terms and conditions of the policy. As per policy conditions, notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of the accident or loss or damage. In theft cases, insurance company used to get both the ignition keys of the insured vehicle to ensure that the vehicle was not left unattended with the ignition key in it. The complainant supplied only one key of the insured vehicle which is fresh and unused key and gave statement to this effect to the investigator. The OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant 03.07.2018 as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The remaining allegations are denied by the Ops and prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed.
3. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his attested affidavit Ex.C-1 and some other documents which are Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 and closed evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party has produced in their evidence some documents i.e Ex.Op/2 to Ex.Op/7 and self attested affidavit Ex.Op/1 and closed evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through the record file carefully with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. During arguments the contentions of both the parties are similar to their respective pleadings, so there is no need to reiterate the same to avoid repetition.
6. Now, come to major controversy, whether the complainant is liable for relief as claimed by him in his prayer or not?
7. It is not disputed that the complainant got his vehicle in question insured from the OP. No doubt, it is not disputed that the policy of the vehicle in question was valid at the time of occurrence of theft. It transpires from perusal of the reply, on merits of OP in para no.3 (i) they admitted this factum that the policy of the vehicle in question was valid from 06.04.2018 to 05.04.2019. As per Ex.C-3 also depicts that the complainant paid premium of Rs.1287/- of the insured vehicle in question to the OP. It is admitted fact that on 23.04.2018 the vehicle in question was stolen in the market. As per Ex.C-4 FIR no.141 dated 10.05.2018 under Section 379 IPC was lodged at PS, City Sangrur.
8. Per contra, as per Ex.OP-2 repudiation letter dated 03.07.2018 issued by OP to the complainant with regard to insured vehicle claim for theft. Shri Vikas Gulati was deputed to investigate the loss by the OP. The report of investigator which is Ex.OP-4 reflected that the complainant left the key in the ignition switch of the vehicle. As per Ex.OP-2 repudiation letter mentioned that the act of complainant amounts to gross negligence on the part of the complainant and it is violation of the terms and conditions no.4 of the policy.
9. To trace out the veracity of truth, this Commission has gone through the relevant portion of terms and condition no.4 of the policy which is reproduced as under:-
“ 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 insured or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle insured shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss.”
10. During arguments the contentions of the learned counsel for the OP are that the vehicle was stolen on 23.04.2018. The intimation was given to the OP by the complainant on 30.04.2018 after delay of seven days. As per Ex.OP-3, FIR was lodged on 10.05.2018 after delay of seventeen days.
11. This Commission has also examined the vital document which is Ex.OP-5 statement of complainant recorded to the investigator during investigation. The complainant stated that one original key is in the possession of the complainant and the second original key of the Activa has gone with the vehicle in question. The key which was used by complainant that the key was with the starting point of the vehicle in question and that key was with the thief. Another original key was delivered by the complainant to the insurance company. Further, the complainant has mentioned in his statement during investigation conducted by the investigator of the company that the complainant is a Govt. teacher. The complainant also put his signatures in English language on each and every page of the statement. “ A man can lie, but document can’t”. The insurance contracts are utmost in goodfaith. The terms and conditions are binding upon the parties. Neither party can go beyond the scope of terms and conditions nor violate the conditions. It is writ large on the file that the key of the vehicle in question was in the ignition switch. Being an ordinary prudent man it is the duty of the complainant to keep the vehicle in question locked through key which is in his possession before occurrence.
12. The considered view of this Commission is that if the complainant perform his liability with care and caution then occurrence of the vehicle in question might not have been occurred. From this angel, the peculiar circumstances of the case, the complainant is liable for negligent act and left the vehicle in question in unattended condition in the market. As such, this Commission has no hesitation to hold that the incident of theft occurred due to key left by complainant in side the ignition switch of the vehicle in question. We feel that the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint for the act of his own wrong. Key in the vehicle in question and leaving the vehicle in question unattended by the complainant is presumed to breach of terms and conditions of the policy. The learned counsel for OP reliance upon judgment titled as Lokesh Kapoor Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, RP No.4369 of 2014 wherein Hon’ble National Consumer Commission held that deficiency in service-opposite party repudiated the claim on account of negligence of the petitioner, who failed to take care of the vehicle, in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Revision Petition dismissed.
13. Resultantly, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the complaint in hand and with careful analysis of the evidence available on record and in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, we dismiss the complaint.
14. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.
15. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
Announced.
January 18, 2024
( Kanwaljeet Singh) (Sarita Garg) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)
Member Member President
BBS/-
