DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:219 of 2010] Date of Institution : 13.04.2010 Date of Decision : 18.07.2011 -------------------------------------- 1. Sh. Bakshish Singh son of Sh. Bant Singh resident of House No.632, P.S.B. Complex, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh. 2. Jaisveen Singh son of Sh. Bakshish Singh son of Sh. Bant Singh resident of House No.632, P.S.B. Complex, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh. …..Complainants. V E R S U S M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited through its Manager, Quite Office No.10, First Floor, Sector 40B, Chandigarh. …..Opposite Party. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Mahipal, Advocate and Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the OPs. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT. Sh. Bakshish Singh and his son Sh. Jaisveen Singh, have filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed: - i) To pay Rs.5,99,000/- i.e. the amount of insured value of the vehicle along with interest @18% per annum from the date of the theft of vehicle till the date of actual payment; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for physical harassment, mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant; iii) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as punitive damages; iv) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainants is that Sh. Bakshish Singh (Complainant No.1) was the owner of car Ford Fiesta (Model 2006) bearing Regd. No.CH-03-Y-0178. It was duly comprehensively insured with the OP vide Cover Note No.PH 7608544 for the period 4.12.2008 to 3.12.2009. According to the complainants, on 8.5.2009, Sh. Jaisveen Singh (complainant No.2) was returning from Chasmis Chae, after attending a function. At about 11.45 PM, he stopped near Balongi Bridge to urniate. After urinating, when he turned back, he saw that four persons were fiddling with his car. When Jaisveer Singh (complainant No.2) tried to stop them, they snatched the ignition key from him and fled away with the car. On the next day i.e.9.5.2009, the complainant lodged F.I.R. No.191 with P.S. Mohali regarding the theft of the car. The complainant also lodged the claim (Annexure C-3) with the OP who appointed Sh. A. P. Singh to investigate the claim. Sh. A. P. Singh visited the spot and submitted his report dated 10.7.2009. The said surveyor asked the complainant to submit some documents, which were duly furnished to him. However, according to the complainant, the untraced report prepared by the police was not accepted by the OP. It insisted for final report under section 173 Cr.P.C. The case of the complainant is that as the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was not filed by that time by the police, so, it could not be furnished. According to the complainant, without waiting for the said report, the OP closed the claim as ‘No Claim’. Later on, when the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was filed, the complainant submitted the said report to the OP and requested it to indemnify the loss. However, to his surprise, he received a letter dated 1812.2009 whereby his claim was repudiated on the ground that sufficient care was not taken, which a prudent man ought to have taken. So, it is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The repudiation of the claim, according to the complainant, is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by OPs, it has been admitted that the car in question was insured with them for the period from 4.12.2008 to 3.12.2009. It has been asserted that policy along with the terms and conditions were duly supplied to the complainants. It has been pleaded that the complainant had parked his vehicle unlocked as one key was left in the ignition. It has further been pleaded that the complainant was required to take all reasonable care to ensure the safety of the vehicle, which he failed to do. Thus, according to the OP, the act of complainant in not taking due care and safety of his vehicle has led to the theft of the vehicle. Therefore, the complainant has violated the terms and condition of the policy by not taking due care and safety of the vehicle in question. In these circumstances, according to OPs, the claim was rightly repudiated. Thus, according to OP, that there is no deficiency on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. Admittedly, the car was insured with the OP having Insured Declared Value of Rs.5,99,000/-. The Cover Note in this respect is Annexure C-1. OP has also admitted that the car was stolen. The case of the OP is that the complainant No.2 did not take sufficient care to safeguard the car from being stolen. So, it is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 6. The term of the policy has been reproduced in the letter itself, which reads as under – “The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle 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 vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of 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 and effected any extension of the damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at insured’s own.” 7. Now the question arises as to whether at the time the complainant went to urinate, was he required to take the keys with him and was he required to have some extra care to safeguard the car? 8. In the case titled National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kamal Singla, IV (2010) CPJ 297 (NC), it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that a driver is not expected to carry keys of the vehicle with him while getting down from the vehicle to answer to answer the call of nature, particularly, when the vehicle was within his sight. Thus, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that leaving the ignition keys in the car while getting down from the vehicle for answering the call of nature, does not amount insufficient care of the car. The complainant No.2 had gone to urinate and the car was within his sight. So, even if he left the ignition keys in the car, it cannot be said that he did not take sufficient care to safeguard the car. 9. In these circumstances, the repudiation of the claim by the OP amounts to deficiency in service. 10. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with following directions to OP to:- i) Pay an amount of Rs.5,99,000/- being the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle along with interest @9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e.18.12.2009 till the date of actual payment. ii) Pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation. 11. This order be complied with by OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP shall be liable to pay Rs.5,99,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e.18.12.2009 till the date of actual payment besides the payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 12. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 18th July, 2011. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Ad/-
(DISTRICT FORUM-II) COMPLAINT CASE NO.219 OF 2010 [ORDER] Argued By: None. --- The case was reserved on 13.07.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 18.07.2011 [PRESIDENT] [MEMBER]
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
