STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No  :        397 of 2015

Date of Institution:        30.04.2015

Date of Decision :         21.05.2015

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd Floor, HDFC Building, Model Town, Rohtak through Sh. Amit Chawla Deputy Manager RGI SCO No.145-146, Sector 9, Chandigarh.  

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

Krishan Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Pal, Resident of H.No.426, VPO Gundan, Tehsil Kalanaur, District Rohtak.   

                                      Respondent-Complainant

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for appellant.

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated January 6^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Rohtak, whereby complaint filed by Krishan Kumar-complainant (respondent), seeking compensation with respect to his truck, which was stolen during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy, was accepted. For ready reference, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“…….it is observed that opposite party shall pay the amount of Rs.885000/- (Rupees eight lac eighty five thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 30.04.2012 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/- (Rupees two thousand two hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of completion of formalities by the complainant e.g. transfer of R.C. & Subrogation letter etc to the opposite party failing which the awarded amount shall fetch interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.”

2.      The complainant got his truck bearing registration No.HR-46B-8882, insured with the Insurance Company from March 17^th, 2009 to March 16^th, 2010, vide Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-2). The Insured Declared Value (for short ‘IDV’) of the truck was Rs.8,85,000/-. During the intervening night of August 3^rd/4^th, 2009, the truck was stolen in the area of Rohtak. F.I.R. No.570 (Exhibit C-1) was lodged in Police Station, Rohtak on the same day, that is, August 4^th, 2009. Intimation was given to the Insurance Company. He filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter (Exhibit C3/R-7).

3.      He filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      On contest, the Insurance Company took the plea that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated because he had left both the ignition keys inside the truck during night hours and thus violated terms and conditions of the policy. It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.   

5.      After evaluating the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on the record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and issued direction to the Insurance Company as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

6.      The solitary submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the complainant had left both the ignition keys inside the truck which was in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and therefore he was not entitled for any benefits of insurance.  In support, the report of the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company has been relied upon.  

7.      A relevant part of the report of surveyor is as under:-

“……….He also informed that he kept one starting key inside the vehicle and locked the doors of the vehicle from outside. Thereafter at around 03.30/04.00 A.M. when he came to the place where the vehicle was parked he couldn’t find the vehicle there. Subsequently he tried to search the vehicle in the vicinity but when the vehicle was not located anywhere he reported the incident to Police Control Room who in turn advised him to report the theft at Police Station….”

8.      The report of surveyor clearly depicts that the doors of the truck were locked. It has not been mentioned in the report that the key of the truck was left in the ignition. Therefore, it cannot be said that the driver had left the truck unlocked.   

9.      In view of the above, the order under appeal requires no interference. The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

CL