Order

1. This appeal by O.Ps (Insurance company) of Complaint case no. 58 of 2018 is directed against the order dated 28.08.2019 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Khagaria by which they were directed to pay Rs. 3,95,500/- to the complainant as the insured value of stolen vehicle with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and litigation cost Rs. 1,000/- within two months of the date of order failing which to pay the entire amount with interest thereon @ 6% per annum.
2. The case of complainant is that one pickup van of complainant having registration no. BR-09M-3893 was insured with O.P. no. 1 for the period 29.12.2015 to 28.12.2016 under policy number 170703/31/15/6300009348. The vehicle was stolen on 19.12.2016 at about 5:00 pm by some unknown person while it’s driver alighted from the vehicle for a short while at Chhitanya Bahia on returning from Parbatta for answering urgent nature’s call leaving inadvertently the key of vehicle inside the ignition switch. When the driver saw from a short distance that someone was taking away the vehicle towards Bandhera, he ran at once after the vehicle upto Bandhera chowk but couldn’t overpower the thief. Then he went to Khagaria and inform the owner-complainant about the incident. On the next day at about 10:00 am the driver on the direction of the owner gave written information of the theft at the local police outpost on the basis of which Parbatta P.S case no. 298 of 2016 was registered. On completing investigation police submitted final form in the case as case true but no clue. The final form was accepted by the concerned court. The complainant informed O.P.no. 1 also above the theft of vehicle and filed claim before him but his claim was repudiated by him which amounts to deficiency in service. So, he filed the aforesaid complaint.
3. The O.Ps filed a written statement and contested the case before the District Forum. They have not denied the alleged theft of vehicle, they have not denied the insurance policy also issued by them. But they have stated that there has no deficiency in service on their part in repudiating the claim because the theft occurred due to lack of reasonable care and precaution required to be taken by the driver for safety of the vehicle. If the vehicle is stolen due to lack of reasonable care and precaution required to be taken for its safety by the owner then in such case the claim can not be allowed according to terms and conditions of the policy. So, they have rightly repudiated the claim. Under such circumstance, the complaint ought to have been dismissed by the District Forum. As such, they have come up in this appeal. They have further stated therein that as per rules in practice for settlements of claims they appointed a qualified investigator who investigated the claim. He reported that it was a case of negligence which is not covered under policy conditions. So, the claim may be repudiated. His report (photo copy) annexure-4 at page 27 of the memo of appeal. On the basis of his report they repudiated the claim.
4. Heard, the learned counsels for both parties and perused the record.
5. The position of law as decided earlier by another Hon’ble bench of this State Commission in the case of Nageshwar Charitable Trust Vs. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another in Complaint case no. 43 of 2019 is that in such case the complainant is entitled to get 75% of the value of the insured vehicle on non-standard basis. The insurance company can’t repudiate the whole claim in such case. This decision is based upon some other decisions reproduced therein.
6. In view of aforesaid settled position of law this appeal is allowed in part on contest and the impugned order is modified as under –     
                    The O.Ps were directed to pay only 75% of the insured value of the stolen vehicle on non-standard basis to the complainant within 30 days of the date of this order failing which to pay the same with 6% interest thereon till the date of payment. The amount granted by the District Forum on other counts are reasonable. We, uphold and maintain the same. Parties to bear their own cost in this appeal
   
   
   
   
   
   Md. Fariduzzama