Karnataka

StateCommission

A/164/2019

Purushotham.A - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

K.Anandarama

21 Feb 2023

ORDER

21/02/2023

O R D E R

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Complainant preferred this appeal against the order dated 02.01.2019 passed in C.C.No.136/2017 on the file of Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mangalore.

Heard from respondent also.

          Advocate for appellant submits that the vehicle was stolen within the premises of apartment.  There is no negligence on the part of complainant, but, the insurance company repudiated the claim without any reasons.  Hence, filed complaint before District Commission alleging deficiency in service and claimed for compensation towards theft of the vehicle.

          The District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant is negligent in taking care of the vehicle.  Infact, the complainant had taken precaution in parking vehicle.  He had not parked the vehicle in the public, but, parked vehicle within the premises of apartment.  Leaving key in the vehicle not amounts to negligence.  Thus, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and prays to allow the complaint and direct respondent to settle the claim.

          On perusal of the order passed by the District Commission, memorandum of appeal and on submissions of Learned advocate for appellant and respondent it is noticed that complainant has given a police complaint on 22.07.2016 stating that on 22.07.2016 his vehicle was stolen when he had parked his vehicle, leaving the key in the vehicle itself.  As per the terms and conditions of the policy the insured has not taken proper care of the vehicle and also has not taken precautionary measures while parking the vehicle.  Leaving key in the vehicle is clearly negligence on the part of complainant.  We consider the complainant made an invitation by leaving keys to steal the vehicle.  The respondent has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.  We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of OP/insurance company.  As such there is no illegality in the order passed by the District Commission.  Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.

 

                   Member                          Judicial Member