Passed  by  Shri  Atul D. Alsi, Hon’ble President.

1. The complainant filed present complaint against the repudiation of insurance claim by opposite party for the theft of vehicle and claiming IDV value of Rs. 18,00,000/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental and physical harassment and Rs.25,000/-  for the cost  of litigation.

The Story in short.

2. The complaint owned truck bearing no. CG-04-JD-4623, manufactured in year of April-2013 and insured with Op No.1 under insurance policy bearing No.170521823340012023 under Reliance Commercial Vehicle Package policy valid for the period from 10.10.2018 to 9.10.2019 for the sum assured of Rs.18,00,000/-. On 6.5.2019 the complainant driver Harpalsingh Mangat was playing the vehicle from Wadi to Chandrapur the vehicle was parked near Petrol Pump there was some problem in engine of the truck and therefore after locking of the vehicle the driver went to search the mechanic for repair but after returning back the vehicle was missing from the spot. The driver inquired with the security guard of petrol pump but the vehicle could not be located, therefore the matter was reported to the police station after consultation with owner of truck , the offence u/s 379 of I.P.C. came to be registered at Hingna police station bearing No.192/2019 and intimation of theft was given on toll free Number of insurance company.  The complainant had filed the insurance claim with relevant document but the O.P. has repudiated the claim for the reason of the drive failed to take proper care of vehicle and for the negligence of drive the claim is not payable as per terms and condition of the policy.  The complainant claim has been repudiated on the basis of false report prepared by investigator of insurance company, therefore rejection of claim does amount to deficiency of service hence the present case came to be filed.
3. Opposite party No.1 and 2 filed reply and denied allegation and submitted that O.P. admitted the insurance policy of complainant vehicle after intimation of theft the O.P.No.1 has appointed investigator and as per investigation report the driver of vehicle failed to take reasonable care of vehicle. Therefore due to negligence on the part of complainant driver the insurance claim has been repudiated. The story narrated by the complainant about watchmen of complainant is itself false story, therefore rejection of claim does not amount to deficiency in service. 
4. The counsel for complainant argued that the complainant driver has taken appropriate steps and parked the vehicle near petrol pump while going for the search mechanic, for repair of truck. The investigator has filed false report without due recording the statement of driver, owner and other persons. The complainant submitted insurance claim with relevant document therefore rejection of claim without assigning proper reason does amount deficiency in service.
5. The counsel for O.P. argued that the investigator has carried investigation as per rules and procedure and after visiting spot it is found that the vehicle left unattended , therefore rejection of insurance claim does not amount to deficiency in service.

                           REASONING

6. The complaint is women and she engaged the truck for earning her livelihood. The complainant’s truck was going from Wadi to Chandrapur to deliver the goods to Gujarat, there was problem in the engine of truck, therefore the vehicle was parked at Abhijeet Petrol Pump at Hingna Dist. Nagpur. The driver had gone in search of mechanic to repair the truck and while coming back the truck was missing, therefore after search the matter is reported police station and accordingly FIR came to registered u/s.379 of I.P.C. came to be registered at Hingna police station on dated 8.5.2019, u/s 379 of IPC.  The incident of theft was taken place on 7.5.2019 at about 9’O clock in the night and the FIR came to be registered on 8.5.2019 at about 1.25 pm.  The complainant vehicle was parked in the premises of petrol pump and admittedly at relevant time there was traffic at petrol pump and the complaint’s driver had locked the vehicle before leaving to search the mechanic and informed to the owner of truck and reported the matter to nearest police station with intimation to insurance company, therefore the complainant driver has complied all necessary formalities after missing of vehicle.   The O.P. repudiated the insurance claim on the sole report of investigator who was appointed by O.P.  The O.P. has not filed the evidence by way of affidavit of investigator to prove the contention of complainants driver had failed to take necessary precautions at the time of leaving the truck in search of repair, therefore there is no negligence on the part of complainant driver.  Hence rejection of insurance claim does not amount to deficiency in service. Therefore the claim is allowed on the basis non standard basis of claim and opposite party is liable to pay 75% of IDV value of Rs.18,00,000/-, that is Rs.13,50,000/- to the complainant without any interest and compensation. Hence the following order.

                                                                O R D E R

1. Complaint is party allowed.
2. Opposite party is directed to pay 75% of IDV value of Rs.18,00,000/-, that is Rs.13,50,000/- towards Reliance Commercial Vehicle Package policy issued by O.P. to the complainant.
3.  No order as to costs.
4. Copy of order be furnished to both parties, free of cost.