Haryana

Ambala

CC/295/2018

Jagtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIA - Opp.Party(s)

G.S. Bawa

03 Feb 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.: 295 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution   :  05.09.2018.

                                                          Date of decision    :  03.02.2020.

 

Jagtar Singh, aged 38 years son of Shri Balwant Singh, resident of H.No.26, Village Khanpur, P.S. Saha, District Ambala.

(Aadhar Card No.3169 7075 7980)

 

                                                                                      ……. Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

The New India Assurance Company, Branch Office, Ambala City near Civil Lines, Arya Chowk, above O.B.C Bank, Ambala City. 

 

               ..…. Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri G.S.Bawa, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Shri Dev Batra, Advocate, counsel for OP. 

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

 

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1. To pay Rs.5,50,000/- i.e. the IDV of the truck and to pay Rs.13,20,000/- i.e.2,000/- per day calculated w.e.f. 06.11.2016 to 31.08.2018, for the loss suffered by the complainant on account of theft of his vehicle.
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation as mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the registered owner of truck No.HR-37-9170 Model-2007, Marka 2515 Ex10 Tyre Trolla. It was duly insured with the OP vide policy 35350231150100007318 for the period from  12.12.15 to 11.12.16, having Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.5,50,000/-. On 06.11.2016, in the night, he parked his truck in front of his house at village Khanpur, after locking the same and in the morning, the truck was missing from the parked spot. He immediately intimated the police regarding theft of his truck. Police suggested him to search his truck and told him to inquire from the Finance company from where he got his truck financed. He immediately rushed to the finance company and came to know that his truck was not repossessed by it. Lots of efforts were done by him and the police, but the truck could not be found and ultimately, the police registered the FIR No.163 dated 09.11.2016 u/s 379 of IPC, PS Saha. The police was unable to find the truck and finally police had submitted the untraced report before the Court of JMIC, Ambala and in view of the statement suffered by him, the said untraced report was accepted by the said Court. He submitted the certified copy of the untraced report with the insurance company but it was lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. After few months a person came to his house who had taken his signature and his driver on blank papers on the pretext that the claim amount will be paid to the complainant very soon. Complainant used to earn Rs.2000/- per day from the said vehicle and after theft of his vehicle, he remained without work from 06.11.2016 to 31.08.2018 for about 22 months and during this period he had suffered a loss of Rs.13,20,000/-. But the OP did not pay him single penny.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.       Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising                                                                                                                                         preliminary objections regarding maintainability; jurisdiction and cause of action. On merits, It is stated that allegedly theft took place 5/6.11.2016 but the matter was reported to the police on 09.11.2016 i.e. 3-4 days after of the alleged loss and to the insurance company on 16.11.2016 i.e. after an inordinate and crucial delay of 10 days. The claim was not payable for want of violation of terms and conditions of policy. Vide Registered Letter dated 07.07.2017, the OP rightly repudiated the claim on the ground that there is delay of three days in reporting the matter with the police and 10 days in informing to it, as such there is violation of condition No.1 of the Motor Insurance Policy and also on the ground that the complainant had committed gross negligence by leaving the ignition and door keys inside the vehicle in question at the time of theft and key clause of the policy is applicable. There is not deficiency on their part and complaint filed against is liable to be dismissed. 

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant alongwith complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure-CA along with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-18 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP tendered affidavits of Shri K.K.Sachdeva (Sr.D.M), The New India Assurance Company Limited and Shri Kashmir Singh Prop. M/s Royal Associates, Investigator Kurukshetra as Annexure OP-A & OP-B respectively alongwith documents Annexure OP-1 to OP-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the case file.

5.                Admittedly, the vehicle in question was duly insured with the OP for the period from 12.12.2015 to 11.12.2016 vide policy document Annexure C-6. It was stolen on 06.11.2016. Vide letter dated 07.07.2017, Annexure OP-6, OP refused to pay the claim amount, on the ground that there was delay of three days in reporting the matter to the police and 10 days in informing the Insurance Company, as such there was violation of condition No.1 of the Motor Insurance Policy and also on the ground that the complainant had committed gross negligence by leaving the ignition and door keys inside the vehicle in question, at the time of theft and key clause of the policy is applicable. Admittedly, theft took place on 06.11.2016. The FIR was lodged on 09.11.2016, as is evident from Annexure C-3. From the claim intimation letter Annexure OP-3, it is evident that complainant informed the OPs on 16.11.2016. From the said documents it is evident that there was delay of three days in lodging the FIR with the police and 10 days informing the Insurance Company from the date of occurrence of the incident. Learned Counsel for the OP has contended that not only there is delay in informing the OP about the incident, but it is a case of gross negligence also because the ignition and door keys were left in the vehicle only. To fortify this fact, he has placed on record the copy of the statement of the complainant annexed along with the investigation report, Annexure OP-5, wherein complainant has stated that his brother parked the truck in their premises at 11:00 P.M. and hide the ignition key in the dash board and kept the key of the door inside the truck. The said statement is duly signed by the complainant. It may be stated here that by leaving the ignition key and the key of the door inside the truck, the complainant was negligent in safeguarding the truck in question. In the case of TATA Aig General Insurance Co. Versus Mahindra Singh and Anr., Revision Petition No.1239 of 2018, decided on 21.05.2019, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that by leaving the key of the car in the ignition and not locking the vehicle, the complainant failed to take reasonable steps for safeguarding the vehicle from loss, since leaving the key in the ignition of the vehicle would tempt any thief to commit theft of the vehicle, when the vehicle is left unlocked. The complainant, therefore contravened condition No.5 of the insurance policy in the aforesaid manner. In view of the above referred condition, the insurer is not liable to reimburse the complainant for the loss suffered by him on account of his own negligence. Further in the case Rajeev Kumar Bansal Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance, decided on 19.08.2019, the Hon’ble Statement Commission, New Delhi has held that the insured vehicle was left unattended with keys inside the vehicle, by the driver, when the alleged theft occurred and hence, there was negligence on the part of the driver. Therefore complainant is not entitled to the claim under the insurance policy as there has been negligence on their part, in leaving the keys inside while going away from the vehicle. Considering the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Superior Fora/Courts in the cases referred to above, we do not hesitate to conclude that complainant was negligent in safeguarding the truck and thus OP cannot be held liable to pay the claim amount. 

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint, being devoid of merit. The parties are left to bear their own cost. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the complainant, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :03.02.2020.

 

                    (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

                              Member                             Member               President

                                                                                                 DCDRF, Ambala.