ORAL
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P. Lucknow.
Appeal No. 652 of 2018
Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Signature Tower, 9th Floor, Tower Second, South
City-1, NH-8, Gurgaoune, Hariyana, Head Office
Royal Sundaram Towers, 45 & 46, White Road,
Chennai-600014 through its Officer in Charge.
....Appellant.
Versus
Ranveer Singh s/o Shri Dewan Singh,
R/o F-154, Trance Yamuna Colony, Rambagh,
Agra-282006. .…Respondent.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Sri Vikas Saxena, Member.
Sri Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for appellant.
Sri T.H. Naqvi, Advocate for respondent.
Date 12.12.2022
JUDGMENT
Per Sri Sushil Kumar, Member- This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15.3.2018 passed by the ld. District Consumer Forum-II, Agra in complaint case no.168 of 2017, Ranveer Singh vs. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd., whereby the ld. District Forum by allowing the complaint, directed the appellant insurance company to pay Rs.5,94,117.00 as insured amount due to theft of the insured vehicle.
We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order alongwith the record.
The ld. counsel for the appellant contended that the complainant provided only one key of the vehicle and he failed to provide second key for which 50% deduction is essential while granting the insured amount in favour of the insured person.
(2)
Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted a ruling Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ashok Kumar Somani & anr., II(2019) CPJ 451 (NC). In this case the driver had left the ignition key inside the vehicle and it was considered a case of negligence on the part of the driver which he has admitted in his statement given to the investigator. The case in hand also reveals this fact that insured person provided only one key and failed to provide second key to the investigator. Therefore, insured person committed some negligence on his part. Consequently, he is entitled to get insured amount after deduction of 25% of the insured amount. 50% deduction is not applicable in this case because quantum of negligence is different in the case submitted by the counsel for the appellant and the case in hand. Therefore, appeal deserves to be partially allowed.
ORDER
Appeal is allowed partially. The judgment and order is modified to the extent that complainant will get the insured amount after deduction of 25% of the insured amount. Rest part of the judgment is confirmed.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Vikas Saxena) (Sushil Kumar)
Member Presiding Member
Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.
Consign to record.
(Vikas Saxena) (Sushil Kumar)
Member Presiding Member
Jafr, PA I
Court 2
