Haryana

StateCommission

A/1225/2016

TATA AIG GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARESH - Opp.Party(s)

RAJNEESH MALHOTRA

09 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                                         First Appeal No  :      1225 of 2016

Date of Institution:      14.12.2016

Date of Decision :       09.01.2017

 

 

TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Office at 301-208, 3^rd Floor, Aggarwal Prestige Mall, Plot No.2, Road No.44, Near M2K Cinema, Rani Bagh, Pitampura, New Delhi -110034.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

1.      Naresh son of Om Parkash resident of Village Bahu, Tehsil Matanhail, District Jhajjar, Haryana

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Office at Plot No.7, 3^rd Floor, Sector 125, Noida (U.P) 201313 through its Manager.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                                                                                      

Present:               Shri Rajnesh Malhotra, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party No.1 (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) has filed the present appeal against the order dated October 17^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby the complaint filed by Naresh-complainant, was allowed.  The Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.3,65,750/-, that is, Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the tractor alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of theft, that is, July 06^th/07^th, 2015 till realization and Rs.5500/- litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.      On the intervening night of July 06^th/07^th, 2015 tractor of the complainant was stolen while it was parked in front of his house.  He lodged First Information Report No.184 dated July 07^th, 2015 (Exhibit P-5) in Police Station Salhawas.  The tractor was insured with the Insurance Company.  The complainant filed claim before the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated on the ground that intimation of the theft in writing was not given immediately and secondly ignition key was left in the ignition point of the tractor and as such, it was in violation of Clause 5 of the insurance policy (Exhibit R-5).

3.      In appeal before this Commission, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has urged that since the complainant had left the ignition key in the ignition point of the tractor, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify him and if it is liable, its liability would be to the extent of 75% of the IDV of tractor

4.      It is not in dispute that the Police was informed immediately after the occurrence and the Insurance Company was also informed within seven days of the incident.  Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the affidavit purported to have been given by the complainant stating in paragraphs No.3, 4 & 5 as under:-

          “3.     That I am registered owner of a Swaraj Tractor (unregistered), Engine Number 02241, Chassis Number 15368, Red Colour, which has been stolen from in front of my house in the intervening night of 06/07.07.2015.

          4.      That one key of the subject tractor was lying on ignition point of the tractor at the time of theft.

          5.      That I am fully responsible for the same.”

 

5.      The wording of the affidavit shows it was written by the Insurance Company and thereafter it was got attested from Mithlesh Aggarwal because no prudent man would write in his affidavit that for the theft, he was fully responsible. So, the contention raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not tenable and is therefore rejected. 

6.      For the reasons recorded supra, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

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

 

Announced 09.01.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK