(Passed on 25/01/2024)

Per Mr. Sachin Vinodkumar Jaiswal, Hon’ble Member.

1. The complainant had filed the present complaint under Section 35 and 38 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for the insurance claim of his truck bearing No. MH34/AV3166 against the OP.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under.
3. The complainant is the resident of Ballarpur and resides at the address mentioned in the cause title of the complaint and the OP is General Insurance Company. The complainant is the owner of truck bearing registration No. MH34/AV3166 and the same is insured with OP vide policy No. 604521923340005139 for the period  from 6/12/2019 to 5/12/2020 and paid premium of Rs. 52309/-, the insured declared value of the truck is Rs. 1044000/-. During the subsistence of the policy, the truck needs repairs and maintenance  and for that the complainant had taken his truck to Alam Garage, Sasti T point, Rajura for repairs and maintenance. The truck needs some welding work which has to be done  by Shri Kallu Verma who is having his shop near Alam Garage. The truck of the complainant needs major repairs and therefore, the truck, was standing near Alam Garage  during the repair works and complainant used to visit the garage on daily basis and at the time of leaving the garage  properly lock the truck and keeping it in front of garage. That on 8/10/2020, the complainant as per his routine, visited the garage and parked the truck by locking it in front of Alam garage but during the night hours some unidentified person had broken the lock of the truck and stolen the insured truck from the parked place. The complainant has immediately approached Police Station, Rajura. The complainant immediately filed report to Police Station, Rajura and informed the OP as well as RTO about the occurrence of theft of the truck. The FIR, Spot Panchanama and A summary report had been filed by the complainant on record.
4. The OP have repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 30/04/2021 for the reasons of breach of policy condition No. 5.
5. After the repudiation of the claim by the OP, the complainant sent legal notice to the OP through his counsel on 12/7/2021 and filed the present complaint seeking compensation for the legitimate claim of the complainant which amounting to deficiency in service of OP along with mental agony  and harassment.
6. After receipt of notice issued by the Commission, the OP appeared and filed their written statement and denied all the allegations made against them by the complainant. The OP further submitted that the complainant had left his truck unattended on the road side without taken  any proper care to safeguard the insured vehicle.

7. We heard both the counsels at length and verified the record. The complainant in support of his claim relied on the following citations by the Appellate Court.

1. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Deep Chem International Pvt. Ltd and Anr.,  by High Court of Punjab and Haryana, decided on 20/03/2015
2. Dharamender Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.  In Civil Appeal No. 5705 of 2021, passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, decided on 13/09/2021
3. Circular of IRDA, dated 20/09/2011
4. National Insurance Company Vs. Harsolia Motors, 2023(2) CPJ 33 SC, decided on 3/4/2023
5. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ashwani Kumar & Anr., passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, decided on 4/2/2020.
6. Haresh Dhirajlal Badiyani Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujrat, decided on 22/10/2021
7. Mahabir Singh Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, decided on 16/01/2018
8. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, 2008 Sup AIR(SC) 1166, decided on 8/5/2008

8. In all the judgments relied by the complainant were on  the points of delay in intimation of claim to the insurance company or delay in filing FIR as well as IRDA regulations for delay is also been filed. Other citations which were relied by the complainant, where of the view that even in case of breach of policy condition, insurance company should pay the claim of the complainant to the tune of 60% to 75 % of the IDV.
9. The counsel for OP extended his argument on the ground that the vehicle was left unattended and therefore, the theft occurred and therefore there is breach of policy condition No. 5 and insurance company is not liable to compensate the complainant.
10. After going through the repudiation letter filed by complainant on record other than the breach of policy condition, the insurance company had also taken the course of general exception No. 2 of motor insurance policy, it says as below…

“ The motor insurance policy excludes the losses under contractual liability which is the General Exceptions No. 2 of Motor Insurance Policy. The company shall not be liable under this policy in respect of ‘any claim arising out of any contractual liability’

11. The complainant in his complaint had not talked about these issue as well as there is no whisper about the same in the written statement as well as arguments of OP/insurance company. So, we find that both the parties to the complaint did not want to touch the issue. The OP tried to justify their repudiation letter dated 30/04/2021 but the Commission did not find any force in the arguments of OP as well as the OP failed to prove on record that there is breach of policy  condition. After going through all the submissions made by the parties in argument and going through the record, the OP were deficient is providing service to complainant by repudiating their legal and legitimate claim on monotonus and technical ground. The Commission pass following orders.

ORDER

1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. The OP is directed to pay IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 10,44,000/- to the complainant with 9% interest from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 27/07/2021 till realization.
3. The OP is further direceted to pay Rs. 30,000/- to complainant towards mental agony and harassment and Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of litigation.
4. Copy of order be furnished to both parties, free of cost.