Haryana

StateCommission

A/1171/2017

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROHTASH SAINI - Opp.Party(s)

PUNIT JAIN

12 Jan 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

First Appeal No  :    1171 of 2017

Date of Institution:    03.10.2017

Date of Decision :     12.01.2018

 

 

 

1.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited through its Authorized Signatory, Plot No.6, 1^st Floor, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, Near Metro Pillar No.81, New Delhi.

          Local Address: SCO 2463-2464, Sector 22, Chandigarh.

 

2.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd Floor, Dare House, 2 NSC Bose Road, Chennai as well as through its authorized signatory at Brass Market, Rewari.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Rohtash Saini son of Sh. Jag Ram Saini, resident of House No.7703, Azad Chowk, Saini Market, Circular Road, Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member             

 

Argued by:                    Shri Punit Jain, Advocate for appellants.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH, J (ORAL)

 

          Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited and its functionary-opposite parties (for short ‘the Insurance Company’) are in appeal against the order dated August 11^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Rohtash Saini-complainant (respondent herein) seeking insurable benefits with respect to his vehicle which was stolen during the subsistence of the insured period, was accepted. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“8.     In view of the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons, the present complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay the claim on non standard basis, that is, 75% of the Insured Declared Value of Rs.6,41,250/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 9% per annum from today, that is, the date of decision till payment.….”    

2.                Vehicle bearing registration No.HR36R-1512 owned by the complainant was insured with the Insurance Company for the period October 12^th, 2011 to October 11^th, 2012.  On July 08^th, 2012, the vehicle was stolen. First Information Report No.175 dated July 09^th, 2012 was lodged in Police Station Manesar. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim vide letter dated November 20^th, 2012 on the ground that the vehicle was left un-attended. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.                Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has urged that the complainant did not take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle.  He left the vehicle unattended.

4.                This Commission does not concur with the submission raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company.  In the FIR, it has been clearly stated by the complainant that he was on his way from Gurgaon to Rewari.  He stopped the vehicle at Fauzi Hotel, Manesar to urinate.  In the meantime, unknown persons fled away with the vehicle.

5.               In Revision Petition No.590 of 2014, New India Assurance Company Ltd. and another vs. Shri Girish Gupta, decided on July 31^st, 2014, Hon’ble National Commission held as under:-

“21.   This condition in our considered view requires insured to take reasonable steps for protection of the insured vehicle from any loss or damage. The leaving of the key in the ignition of the car on all occasions cannot be termed as so serious breach so as to disentitle the insured from seeking claim under the insurance policy. Whether or not there is breach of condition will always depend upon the facts of the case. The car is said to have been stolen when the driver parked the vehicle at road side and went to ease himself, forgetting to remove the keys from ignition. This lapse on the part of the driver cannot be treated as wilful breach of condition no.5 on the part of the driver. If in the hurry to answer the call of nature the driver forgot to remove keys from the ignition switch he cannot be said to have committed wilful breach violation of the terms of the above condition no.5. In our aforesaid view we are supported by judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s Sagar Tour & Travels & Anr. P.L.R. Vol. CLX IV – (2011-4)”

6.                In view of factual and legal position enunciated above and also that the District Forum awarded the claim on non standard basis to the complainant, the submission of the Insurance Company carries no weight.  Thus, the impugned order does not call for any interference. The appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. 

7.                The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 12.01.2018

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK