SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complaint is filed for getting the insurance claim of a stolen vehicle, jeep bearing Reg.No.KL-6A-599 owned by the complainant.
 

The complainant is a business man and now he is settled at Coimbatore for business purpose. His brother, Thomas P.S is the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant, who is authorised by the complainant to file this case. The complainant is the registered owner of a jeep bearing Reg.No.KL-6A-599. He is having a valid insurance policy which was taken on 9.09.2005 as policy No.57080131056100005240 for the said jeep. The premium amount paid for the same was Rs.2,584/-. As per the policy, the opposite party assured that they will indemnify the insured against the loss or damages of the vehicle insured, but not exceeding the sum insured Rs.1,17,000/-. On 4.10.2005, the said jeep was parked in front of the workshop of the Power of Attorney Holder, Thomas P.S, which is in Thodupuzha-Pala Road, in between 3 pm to 4 pm, it was stolen by somebody from there. So the complainant registered a crime under Section 379 of IPC as Crime No.544/05 of the Thodupuzha Police Station. After the investigation, the Thodupuzha police has referred the case as undetected. The same was reported to the opposite party's office on 10.10.2005 by the complainant by a written letter. As per the refer report of the police, the complainant filed a claim form as No.570801/31/05/6190000168. But the opposite party repudiated the claim on 24.11.2006. The complainant is entitled to get the compensation for the stolen jeep which was duly insured for the period from 9.09.2005 to 9.09.2006 and the complaint is filed for getting compensation under various heads.

2. The opposite party appeared and filed a written version and admitted that the jeep was duly insured by the complainant to the opposite party and the amount was for Rs.1,17,000/-. They also admitted that they have received a premium of Rs.2,584/- from the complainant. The vehicle was stolen from the complainant on 4.10.2005. But the matter was informed to the opposite party by the complainant only on 10.10.2005. On scrutiny of claim form and police records filed by the complainant, the opposite party understood that the complainant violated the conditions of the policy. Condition No.1 of the policy, the insured shall give notice by writing to the insurance company immediately upon the occurrence of any loss or damages in the event of any claim. There is delay of 6 days in giving the notice by writing about the theft of the vehicle No.KL-6A-599. Therefore, the complainant had violated condition No.1 of the policy that the theft of the said vehicle was not informed immediately. As per condition No.4 of the policy, the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damages. The complainant had parked the vehicle in a public place carelessly, unattended and without removing the key from the vehicle. Therefore the vehicle was lost due to carelessness, negligence and irresponsibility on the part of the complainant. The jeep was stolen in the day time between 3 pm and 4 pm. If the ignition key was removed from the vehicle, the insured vehicle would not have been stolen during the day time. According to the complainant the vehicle was used by several persons. So it can be seen that the complainant has not taken all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss. Since the complainant has violated the conditions of the policy, the opposite party is not liable to indemnify the complainant for any loss of the vehicle insured. So the opposite party repudiated the claim and the opposite party is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

4. The power of Attorney Holder of the complainant is examined as PW1. Exts.P1 to P5 were marked on the side of the complainant. The opposite party was examined as DW1. Exts.R1 to R6 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.
 

5. The POINT :- Complainant's jeep bearing registration No.KL-6A-599 was insured in the opposite party's office and the complainant paid a premium of Rs.2,584/- for the same which is Ext.P2. The said jeep was stolen at the evening between 3 pm and 4 pm on 4.10.2005. The complainant informed the matter before the Thodupuzha Police Station on the very next day at 1 pm. Ext.P3 is the FIR registered by the Thodupuzha Police for the same under Section 379 of I.P.C. These facts are admitted by the opposite party. Complainant's brother, who is the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant was examined as PW1. As per PW1, the jeep was parked in front of his office near side of the road. The vehicle was used by his staff also. So the key of the vehicle was kept in the vehicle itself. The complainant informed the theft to the opposite party on the next day through telephone and a written notice was given after 5 days. Ext.P5 is the policy which is admitted by the opposite party. The opposite party was examined as DW1, who is the Branch Manager of the company. Certified copy of the insurance copy is marked as Ext.R1. Ext.R2 is the intimation letter received from the complainant dated 10.10.2005. Ext.R4 is the first information statement given to the Thodupuzha Police by the complainant. Ext.R5 is the repudiation letter given from the opposite party's office. As per the DW1, the complainant did not take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from the loss or damage. The ignition key was not taken from the vehicle when parked. Only because of that reason the theft was caused. The complainant has the duty to keep the ignition key in safe custody. The vehicle was parked in the public road without due care. So it is a violation of condition 4 of the policy. And also the matter was intimated to opposite party's office only after on 10.10.2005. The theft was occurred on 4.10.2005. This is a violation of condition 1 of the policy. So the claim was repudiated. As per Ext.R6, investigation report filed by the opposite party, it is written that the jeep was stolen by somebody and the crime is undetected. Only dispute is whether the policy conditions 1 and 4 are violated by the complainant. As per the policy condition 1, notice shall be given in writing immediately after the theft to the company. In this case as per PW1, telephonic information was given to the company immediately after the theft and a police complaint is filed on the very next day, FIR is marked as Ext.P3. Anyway theft is also admitted by the opposite party.

6. The second point is the condition No.4 of the policy. Whether the complainant took reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle. As per PW1, the vehicle is parked in front of his office, on the courtyard of his office. There is parking area in front of the office. But unfortunately the boundary is public road. The staff of the complainant were using the vehicle usually and so the key was not taken from the vehicle. The complainant usually does the same. So we think that the vehicle was parked in front of the office of the complainant, which is his courtyard also. May be the in front area is a public road. Anyway for the purpose of office use, the vehicle have to park in front of the office only, if it is parked in a pay and park place, the complainant's purpose of use will not be done. The vehicle is bought for the daily use of the same. The time of theft was not a midnight. It was in the day time between 3 to 4. So it is not a negligence from the part of the complainant to keep the vehicle in front of his office in the mid-day, with broad day light. The opposite party repudiated the claim only because of these reasons is not proper. The vehicle is insured for theft also, the complainant is paying the premium promptly. The repudiation of the claim for unnecessary reasons is a gross deficiency in the part of the opposite party. So we think it is fit to pay the insurance amount Rs.1,17,000/- to the complainant with 12% interest from the date of this petition and Rs.2,000/- for the cost of this petition. No compensation is allowed because the interest is ordered.

As a result, the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay the insurance amount Rs.1,17,000/- to the complainant with 12% interest from the date of this petition and Rs.2,000/- for the cost of this petition within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry further interest at 12% per annum from the date of default.
 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of September, 2008