Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/191/2024

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAGAT RAM - Opp.Party(s)

ARJUN KUNDRA

30 Sep 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Additional Bench]

 

Appeal No.	:	A/191/2024
Date  of  Institution	:	30/04/2024
Date   of   Decision	:	30/09/2024

 

 

 

 

 

1.     The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Managing Director, Regional & Head Office: A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi – 110002.

 

2.     The Manager/ Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through SCO 109-110-111, Surendra Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.

 

        Appellants now through its Authorized Signatory/ GPA Holder Sh. Satpal Singh, Deputy Manager, R.O., The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 109-111, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

 

….Appellants/Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Jagat Ram son of Ganga Ram, Resident of House No. 1766-C, Small Flats, Dhanas, Chandigarh.

 

…. Respondent/Complainant

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH      MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Arjun Kundra, Advocate for the Appellants.
		Sh. Aashish Nagar, Advocate for the Respondent (on V.C) Sh. Jagat Ram, Respondent in person.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

1.         The present appeal has been filed by the Appellants impugning the order dated 07.03.2024 vide which the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. District Commission”), allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing no.CC/311/2020, in the following terms:-

 “7.    ………………….. Taking in view account of the above said order of the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, the present complaint is allowed with direction to the Opposite Parties to pay 75% of the IDV value of the Autoriksha i.e. Rs. 75,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing this complaint till its actual realization to the complainant.

 

8.      This order be complied with by the OP(s), within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copies.”

 

 

2.         For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the present cases, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Commission.

 

3.         Before the Ld. District Commission, it was the case of the Complainant that he had purchased an Autoriksha to earn his livelihood, model Bajaj compact LPG bearing registration No. CH01TA0242 and the same was insured with the opposite parties. On 22.07.2018, son of the complainant went to Phase 11, Mohali to drop some passengers and he found that his Autoriksha was missing, he went to the Police Station on 23.07.2018, and police asked him to wait for some days, as police was tracing his Autoriksha. On 28.07.2018, complainant got registered F.I.R No. 88 dated 28.07.2018, under section 378 IPC that his Autoriksha was stolen. The claim was lodged with the insurance company as the vehicle was insured for an amount of ₹1,00,000/- being the Insurance Declared Value of ₹1,00,000/-, but the insurance company wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant without any reason. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

4.         The Opposite Parties contested the claim of the Complainant by filing reply inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It was submitted that no theft ever took place, the vehicle was stolen solely due to the admitted negligence and willful default on the part of the driver and the owner of the vehicle by leaving the key of the auto in the auto itself, unattended in public place and at night time without proper precaution; which showed that there had been deliberate breach of the fundamental terms & the conditions of the Insurance Policy. Hence, the competent Authority of the OP - Insurance Company rightly and on valid grounds repudiated the claim and closed the file, as claim is not Admissible. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

5.         On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. District Commission allowed the Complaint and issued directions to the Opposite Parties as noticed in the opening para of this order.

  

6.         Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties.

 

7.         We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

 

8.         The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

9.         Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that in the light of the material on record, answer to the question posed has to be in negative.

 

10.         It is the case of the Appellants/Opposite Parties that the Ld. District Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record, which resulted into perverse finding. Also, the impugned order was passed without taking into consideration the facts of the case and without appreciating the correct legal position, which resulted into gross miscarriage of justice and thus deserves to be set aside. The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines and prayed for acceptance of the present appeal.

 

11.         Conversely, it has been contended on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission is quite just & right and does not call for any interference. The detailed finding of facts has already been recorded by the District Commission while rejecting the stand of the Appellants/Opposite Parties. The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines as stated in the complaint filed before the Ld. District Commission and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. 

 

12.         The main thread which runs through the present controversy is whether the Respondent/Complainant failed to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage, inasmuch as the insured vehicle was left unattended, unlocked with ignition key therein in the public place at night time by the Respondent/ Complainant.

 

13.         Bare perusal of the repudiation letter dated 15.03.2019 transpires that the Appellants/ Opposite Parties repudiated the insurance claim on the ground that the Respondent/Complainant in violation of term & conditions of the insurance contract has failed to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss.  To this effect, Learned Counsel  for the Appellants drawn our attention to Condition No.5 of the insurance contract, which reads as thus: -

 

“5.    The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition that 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.” 

 

 

14.         On bare perusal of the above, it is emphatically clear that as per condition no.5 of the insurance contract, the insured Respondent/Complainant was under obligation to take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. Learned Counsel for the Appellants in order to substantiate the aforesaid ground for repudiation has referred to the signed statements of the Complainant – Sh. Jagat Ram, Sh. Pawan Kumar son of the Complainant and one Sh. Tinku son of Late Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Annexure R-1 to R-3, duly signed by them, wherein it was clearly recorded that the driver of the insured vehicle had left the vehicle unattended with keys inside and went to bathroom. From the aforesaid statements, it is clear that the driver of the vehicle was grossly negligent and had failed to take reasonable steps to protect the insured vehicle from loss or damage. Leaving of key inside the unattended vehicle amounts to invitation to unscrupulous person to drive away the vehicle. Thus, in our concerted opinion, the insurance claim was rightly repudiated by the insurance company.  The impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission is therefore based on wrong appreciation of evidence and law on the point and thus suffers from illegality or perversity. 

 

15.         No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the Appellants.

 

16.         In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission is set aside. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

17.         The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

 

18.         Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.  

 

19.         The files be consigned to the Record Room, after due completion.

Pronounced

30^th Sept., 2024                                                                 

                                         Sd/-                         

                                                                (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER