DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

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

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.776/2009

Sh. Gajendra Pal Singh

Flat No.85, Pocket-2,

Sector-2, Dwarka,

New Delhi-110075                                                         ….Complainant

Versus

Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd.

M-10, Deepsons Building,

NDSE Part-II, 2^nd Floor,

New Delhi-110049                                                         ….Opposite Party

                                                  Date of Institution        :     26.10.2009    Date of Order     :     18.10.2018

Coram:

Sh. R.S. Bagri, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Brief put the facts of the complainant are:

1. Sh. Gajendra Pal Singh, the complainant insured the motor vehicle of model Mahinder & Mahinder (Scorpio) vide policy No.2008-V0008679-FPV from Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. hereinafter referred to as OP.
   1. The above vehicle was insured for the total insured value of Rs.8,24,163/- and the annual premium amount of Rs.29,932/- against the above policy was paid by the complainant on 03.05.08. The insurance against the above vehicle was immediately effected for the period of 03.05.08 to 02.05.08.
   2. It is averred that the above said vehicle of the complainant got stolen on 19.11.08 near hotel Punjabi Nature Mayapuri, New Delhi. Complaint regarding the same was lodged with P.S. Mayapuri on the same day and consequently an FIR was registered.
   3. The complainant telephonically informed the corporate office of OP at Mumbai regarding the theft and the claim of the insured amount was made by telephonic intimation. It is further averred by the complainant that one Sh. Ashish from Surya Claim Bureau, the authorized agent /surveyor of Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. visited the complainant and was apprised of the facts of theft of the vehicle and was provided the required documents. The complainant on receiving the FIR copy and untraced report sent the same to the OP. The OP repudiated the claim of the complainant stating that upon scrutiny of all documents it  has been revealed that at the time of the theft the key was left inside the vehicle. OP further submitted that the complainant  had failed to act in a prudent way and take reasonable care of the vehicle. This is violation of condition 4 of the policy terms and conditions, hence the claim was repudiated. The complainant alleges that the claim was repudiated on very flimsy and arbitrary ground, hence the present complaint with the following prayers:-

1. Direct the OP to pay the insured amount of Rs.8,24,163/- alongwith interest towards the insured value of the motor vehicle.
2. Direct the OP to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant  towards the mental agony and harassment and cost of litigation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.

2. OP resisted the complaint stating that the complaint is based on false averments raised by the complainant. As per the OP theft of the vehicle occurred as the key had been left in ignition and as such the vehicle was left unattended in drivable condition which has directly contributed to the theft.  This is breach of the Condition 4 of the Insurance policy.
   1. As per the Condition 4 of the insurance policy “The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the motor car from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the Company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the motor car or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown the motor car shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the motor car be driven before the necessary repairs are affected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the motor car shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk”. Thus, the OP states that the theft occurred due to the mistake and fault of the complainant and in such circumstances there is no liability on the part of the OP. Denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit has been filed by the complainant wherein all the facts in the complaint have been reiterated in the rejoinder as well as in evidence.
4. Affidavit of Sh. Vikas Khande, Sr. Executive- Legal of M/s Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd has been filed on behalf of the OP.
5. Written arguments have been filed by the parties.
6.  Arguments of the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the parties are heard and documents placed on record perused.
7. In the light of above discussion the main issue between the parties is whether the complainant took reasonable care of the vehicle insured. OP in its written statement states that the complainant had concealed the fact that the complainant had left the vehicle unattended, in a drivable condition with keys in the ignition and had not deliberately informed this fact to the police. The complainant is silent in his pleading about the second set of key of the vehicle. Though, the complainant   plainly denied the above averment of the OP in its rejoinder; however, no explanation as to where the key was, has been specifically given by the complainant.
8. The complainant in his written arguments averred that the insured vehicle was installed with auto-lock system, but the written arguments are not arising out of corresponding pleadings and evidence; therefore cannot be read.
9. The learned counsel of the complainant  has placed his reliance on the judgment passed by NCDRC in  Sukhwinder Singh Vs. Cholamandalam-MS General Insurance Company Ltd., MANU/CF/0572/2013. But the facts stated in the above case are different, as in the above case the driver of the vehicle left the key in ignition as he was in hurry to ease himself. But in the present case there was no urgency as such as the complainant had gone out to have food in a restaurant.
10. Therefore, this Forum is of the opinion that the complainant was negligent in not taking due care of the vehicle. The complainant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

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

Announced on 18.10.18