DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.199/2014

Sh. Bhagwan

S/o Sh. Gopal

R/o H. No.41 Village Kotla,

Delhi-110091                                                               ….Complainant

Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

through its Managing Director

Iffco  Sadan, C-1,

District Centre, Saket, New Delhi                          ….Opposite Party

                                                Date of Institution        : 23.05.14             Date of Order                : 02.05.19

Coram:

Sh. A.S. Yadav, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

1. Succinctly put, the complainant Bhagwan got his vehicle insured with Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP) on 29.08.13, valid from 29.08.13 to 28.08.14. On 07.10.13 the vehicle was stolen and an FIR was lodged with the police station Kalyanpuri. FIR dated 07.10.13 and Untraced report dated 09.11.13 regarding the said vehicle are marked as Mark ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively.
   1. The complainant after theft of the vehicle approached the OP for the claim as per the terms of the insurance policy.  The complainant visited considerable number of times for his claim to the OP’s office but all in vain. The claim filed by the complainant was never allowed. Hence, the complainant approached this Forum for unsatisfactory and deficient services of OP with the prayer to direct the OP to pay the insurance claim amount to the tune of Rs.5,33,994/-. Additionally it is requested that the OP be directed to pay Rs.1,15,000/- towards compensation  and litigation expenses.
2. OP contested the case stating that the vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 07.10.13, after he had left his car keys in the open shop and his son went off to sleep. A true copy of the hand written statement of the son of the complainant Sh. Piyush as well as that of the complainant are annexed as Annexure R-1 & R-2 respectively.
   1. OP appointed an investigator to verify the facts pertaining to theft of the vehicle.  As per the investigation report, it was found that the insured had left the keys of the car unattended in the open shop without taking reasonable care,  which had directly contributed to theft of the complainant’s vehicle. Thus, the complainant being grossly negligent on his part and leaving the vehicle key unattended had failed to take minimum reasonable safeguard of his vehicle from loss thereby violating the condition No.4 of the policy which 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 fully 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 and if vehicle insured be driven before the necessary repairs are affected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk.”

1. It is stated that OP had rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

3. Complainant has filed replication to the written statement of OP reiterating the averments made in the complaint. 
4. Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Raj Kumar Bora, Vice- President (Claims) has been filed on behalf of OP.
5. Both the parties have filed their written arguments. 
6. After having heard the arguments and perusing the material placed on record it is noticed that the vehicle in dispute was parked near the shop of the complainant. In the afternoon when the complainant left for his residence he put the keys of the vehicle on the gaddi present inside the open shop. In the letter written by the complainant and his son to OP it is stated that the complainant left the keys of the vehicle in his shop. Though his son Piyush was present in the shop but when the complainant returned back he found that the said vehicle was missing and his son Piyush was sleeping inside the shop. Thereafter they looked for the keys but could not find the same.
7. It is the case of the complainant that due and reasonable care was taken by the complainant as the complainant had locked the vehicle and parked his car near his shop. It is not the case that the keys of the vehicle were left in the keyhole and/or the vehicle was not locked properly or the vehicle was parked in some shady or unknown area where theft could have taken place. Keys of the vehicle were left on the ‘gaddi’ of his own shop where his son was sitting.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant took due and reasonable care but dishonesty somebody picked up the keys of car from his ‘gaddi’ and stole the vehicle. It is not the case that the complainant purposely left the car key unattended. The car keys were left at the usual place where he used to keep it everyday in his shop. Therefore, complainant’s case is not hit by condition No.4 of the policy.
8. In view of the above, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay the IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.5,33,994/- with  interest @ 6%  per annum to the complainant from the date of filing of the complaint till realization within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which OP shall be liable to pay Rs.5,33,994/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Additionally OP shall pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation  and litigation expenses.

          Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 02.05.19.