DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/249/2015
No. DF/ Central/ Date
Sh. Rajiv Bansal
R/o A-272, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi-110052 ......COMPLAINANT
Versus
National Insurance Company Ltd.
Through Manager
2E/9, Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi-110055
Also at:
National Insurance Company
Through its Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office-8.
1st, C-3, Puja House, Karampura,
New Delhi …..OPPOSITE PARTY
Quorum: Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
Mr. R.S. Nagar, Member
ORDER
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Succinctly put, the brief facts which are material are that the complainant insured his vehicle Toyota Innova car having chassis no. MBJ11JV4007116361 engine no. 2KD6036266 make 2008 from National Insurance Company (in short OP) covering the period from 28.03.2012 to 27.03.2013. The vehicle was stolen during the intervening night of 02.12.2012 and 03.12.2012. An F.I.R. was lodged. The case was investigated and police submitted their final report. Learned MM vide his order dated 14.01.2013 accepted final untraced report. A claim was lodged with the OP for the loss suffered along with all necessary information/documents as required by OP. OP repudiated the claim vide their order letter dated 27.06.2014 on the ground that complainant failed to take necessary steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss of theft. Complainant sent a legal notice dated 22.10.2013 which was served on the OP but the OP failed to settle the claim. Complainant has prayed for directions to OP to pay him IDV value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.4,50,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint along with compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.
Parties filed evidence by way of affidavits and also written arguments. We have heard Sh. Dhiru Nigam, counsel for complainant and Sh. Kapil Chawla, counsel for OP.
It is not in dispute that the vehicle owned by the complainant was insured with the OP for the period 28.03.2012 to 27.03.2013. It is complainant’s case that he lodged his claim with the OP giving necessary documents/information yet his claim was repudiated without any justification.
Learned counsel for OP justified repudiation of the claim on the ground that complainant left the vehicle unattended which amounted to violation of condition 4 of the insurance policy which reads as follows:
“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 insured or any part thereof or any driver or any employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle insured shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damages or loss and if the vehicle insured be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk.”
It is also submitted that OP appointed the surveyor namely Sanjay Dwivedi and advocates to find out the true facts in the matter. On investigation it was found that the complainant failed to safeguard the vehicle from loss and damage by leaving the vehicle unattended on road side from 16:00 on 02.12.2012 to 05:00 hours next morning which gave an opportunity to the thief to steal the vehicle.
Learned counsels for complainant, on the other hand, argued that the complainant had taken due care to safeguard the vehicle from any loss or damage. It is stated that on 02.12.2012 while coming back from some work, front driver side tyre got punctured. Complainant searched for puncture/tyre repair shop in the nearby areas but failed to find any such shop. The complainant was not even carrying the stepney (spare) tyre in the vehicle as on the morning of the same day one of the tyres got punctured and after changing the spare tyre with the punctured one, he left the punctured tyre with a tyre repair shop near his house so that he could pick the same in the evening and that he never expected that on the same day another tyre would get punctured. It is also stated that driving the vehicle with a deflated tyre would have completely damaged the tyre and further would have led to traffic jams. Therefore he parked the vehicle in front of Gujrati Namkeen Shop, where other vehicles were also parked having confirmed from some vendors present there who stated that many persons park their vehicles at night on side of roads in front of shops. He put a steering lock and thereafter locked the vehicle properly and checked all doors and windows of the vehicle before leaving.
The only ground of repudiation is that the insured vehicle was left unattended which gave opportunity to the thieves to steal the same. The said justification for repudiation does not sound convincing. The complainant had taken due care while leaving the vehicle at the place of theft. The OP has not disputed the case of the complainant that on 02.12.2012 the tyres of his vehicle had got punctured. The complainant stated that he searched for puncture/tyre repair shop but failed to find any such shop near the area of parking of the vehicle. It is his case that driving the vehicle with a deflated tyre would have completely damaged the tyre and further would have led to traffic jams. So he parked the vehicle in front of the shop having verified from the vendors that people do park their vehicles at night on side of roads in front of the shops. It is also his case that he had locked the vehicle properly. It is further his case that he collected the stepney from the tyre repair shop but by that time it was late so he decided to go early in the morning and when he reached at the place of parking the vehicle it was missing.
The complainant had taken due care and caution to ensure the safety of the vehicle before he parked it at the place of theft. He had locked the vehicle properly. He had also made requisite inquiry from the persons present there that many people parked their vehicles in front of the shops there. The OP has not disputed the case of the complainant that he was forced to park the vehicle at the place of theft for the reason that the tyres of his vehicle got punctured and he could not drive the vehicle in that condition and could also not find any tyre repair shop nearby.
In a similar case in National Insurance Company vs. Sunil Sharma-IV(2015)CPJ 141(NC), National Commission had repelled the contention of the Insurance Company that the driver of the insured vehicle ought not to have left the vehicle unattended but ought to have remained only by the side of the vehicle, to ensure its safety. It was held that the insured or the driver is not expected to remain present every moment on the spot to ensure safety of the vehicle, but he is only expected to take reasonable precaution and care. It was also held that it was not the case of the Appellant (National Insurance Company) that the vehicle was left unlocked or that any specific aspect of safety was not taken by the insured.
In this case also the insured had taken proper care and caution to ensure the safety of the vehicle. The ground for repudiation is therefore found to be baseless. The claim is allowed. OP is directed to pay IDV Value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.4,75,000/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The above said amount shall be paid within 30 days from today failing which 6% interest per annum shall be payable from the date of order till the date of payment. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on Day of 2019.
