Haryana

StateCommission

A/979/2015

SHRIRAM GEN.INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KULDEEP SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.ARYA

11 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      979 of 2015

Date of Institution:      10.11.2015

Date of Decision :       11.12.2015

1.     Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, E.8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Area Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2.     Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, 10217, SCO 138, Ist Floor, Rare Portion, Sector 17, Commercial Belt HUDA, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

         Both through Ankur Joshi, Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.178, Sector 38, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Kuldeep Singh s/o Sh. Vijay Singh, Resident of Village Mada, Tehsil Narnaund, District Hisar.

                             Respondent/Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri V.K. Arya, Advocate for appellants.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 16^th September, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Kuldeep Singh-complainant/respondent seeking compensation with respect to the loss of his truck which was stolen during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy, was accepted directing the appellants/opposite parties as terms:-

“….we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and hold that the opposite parties are liable to pay 75% amount of IDV of truck in question to the complainant. This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 60 days, from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the opposite parties shall also be liable to pay interest @ 8% per annum on the aforesaid total amount from the date of passing of this order till payment”.

2.      Truck bearing registration No.HR-63A/0472 of the respondent/complainant was insured with Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties/appellants, for the period from 13.12.2011 to 12.12.2012. The Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the truck was Rs.7,90,000/-. The complainant handed over the truck to Rajbir at Auto Market, Hansi for repairs. On 07.03.2012 the truck was stolen from the workshop of Rajbir. The complainant was informed by said Rajbir on 11.03.2012 regarding theft of the truck. Accordingly, the complainant lodged F.I.R. No.134 dated 11.03.2012 (Exhibit C-3), under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, in Police Station, City Hansi. The Insurance Company was informed. The Police submitted untraced report Exhibit C-5. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter dated 22.06.2013 (Exhibit C-13) on the ground that the complainant did not keep the truck in safe custody and also that there was delay in lodging F.I.R. and giving intimation to the Insurance Company.  Challenging the repudiation of his claim, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      The Insurance Company/opposite parties, contested complaint by filing reply and reiterated the facts stated in the repudiation letter, mentioned above. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.      Learned counsel for the appellants/Insurance Company has argued that since the truck was not in safe custody of the insured and that there was in delay in lodging the FIR and giving intimation to the Insurance Company, the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and for that reason he is not entitled for any insurable benefits.

5.      The arguments raised is not tenable. It is not in dispute that the truck was parked in the workshop of Rajbir in Auto Market, Hansi from where it was stolen. Therefore, it would be deemed possession of the complainant with respect to his truck, as the same was handed over to the owner of the workshop for repair as ‘bailment’. The truck was in the nature of bailment in the workshop.  It was neither un-attended nor parked at a place which was in the nature of abandonment. After repairs it was to be returned to the complainant.

6.      In National Insurance Company Limited versus Nitin Khandelwal, IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer.  Even on account of breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis. 

7.      In Amalendu Sahoo Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2010 CTJ 485 (Supreme Court), referring to the principle laid down in Nitin Khandelwal’s case (Supra), Hon’ble Apex Court held that the insurance company cannot repudiate the insurance claim in toto and the insurer is liable to pay 75% of the admissible claim.

 

 

8.      In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position enunciated above, the plea raised by the appellants/Insurance Company is not tenable.  No case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

9.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

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

 

Announced 11.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL