Case No. 232/2021   

IN THE MATTER OF

Said age about 48 years S/o Sri Mohd. Ali R/o H.N. 1070 Gali  No.7 Nagla Patwari Bara gadhdha ke Pass Thana Quarsi Aligarh

                                                         V/s

1. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Reged. Office 21 Patullos Road Chennai600002 RegionalOffice Rider House, Plot No. 136, Sector 44, Gurgaon DO. Delhi Regional office Gurgaon 122001
2. Manager, DCB Bank Ltd. 3/209-A Saungara House, above Pizza Hut, Marris Road, Aligarh

CORAM

 Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot, Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs-

1. The Op be directed to pay the assured sum of the insured truck amounting Rs.1300000 with interest.

2. The Op be directed to pay Rs.100000 for mental pains and sufferings.
3. Any other relief.

2. The Complainant has stated that he is an illiterate person  and he had purchased a good carrier bearing registration no. UP 81CT 6116 financed by op no.2 and insured with OP no.1. The insurance was valid w.e.f. 27.9.2019 to 26.9.2020. Complainant further stated that the truck was stolen on 24.9.2020 at about 4AM when the driver had gone to attend the natural call leaving the truck at the puliya lying in between the Bandh of Rakh and petrol pump before the village Jawan. The driver informed the complainant who informed the police on 24.9.2020 at about 9.30AM with the application written by Satendra Singh to lodge the FIR as the original papers had been stolen with the truck and therefore police did not register the FIR. Ops were informed immediately. Complainant moved application U/s 156(3) CrPC to the court to direct the police to register and investigate the case. FIR was registered. Complainant informed the insurance company on 26.2.2021 having got the FIR registered and information was given to the investigator appointed by the insurance company but the claim was denied by letter dated 2.7.2021. The claim was declined alleging the violation of condition no.5 of the policy. Investigator had not placed the correct facts with the OP no.1. At the time of making statement by the driver to the investigator  the driver was under the impression that a key was left with the truck but the key was found at his home and another key was with the complainant. As such both the keys of the truck were available and one key was handed over to the office of the insurance company. Insurance Company has wrongly refused to make payment of the claim.          
3. Ops submitted in WS that the complainant has been negligent and failed to exercise reasonable care and caution in ensuring safety and security of the vehicle. The Vehicle was left by the driver at road side unattended and with key inside the vehicle. The story of theft is surrounded with serious doubt as the complainant had failed to lodge the   FIR promptly.    
4. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. Ops have also filed affidavit in support of their pleadings.
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
6. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
7. Complainant has stated that the truck was stolen on 24.2.2020 at about 4 AM when the driver Vijay Kumar had gone to attend the natural call leaving the truck at the puliya lying in between the bandh of rakh and petrol pump before the village Jawan. Op insurance company has alleged negligence on the part of the complainant to ensure the safety and security of vehicle. Complainant has deposed in his affidavit that there was sufficient light coming from nearby petrol pump and there was no likelihood of committing  theft of truck. The driver Vijay Kumar who was plying the said truck who had halted at the place of occurrence has deposed in his affidavit that there was sufficient light from nearby  petrol pump and there was also police patrolling. There was no likelihood of committing  theft of the truck. There is no rebuttal of deposition made by the driver Vijay Kumar. Driver has deposed  that the light was coming from nearby petrol pump and there was also police patrolling. It shows that the driver was careful and cautious about the theft of the vehicle and he had taken reasonable care in attending the truck and he cannot be held negligence in attending the truck.
8. Complainant has deposed that he moved application U/s 156(3) CrPC in the court to lodge the FIR and thereafter FIR was lodged and the insurance company was informed. The delay in lodging the FIR and giving  information to the insurance company was beyond the control of complainant. Moreover, as per circular letter dated 20.9.2011 issued by  Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, all the non life individual contracts should not be prevented for settlement of genuine claims and it is also provided in judicial decisions that delay is not material in settlement of the claims.
9. Complainant has challenged the report of the investigator deputed by the OP insurance company supported with affidavit. It has been deposed that the investigator had not fairly conducted the investigation and submitted report with distorted facts. It has been deposed  by the complainant and driver that the investigator had assured the complainant for settlement and they had reposed in him and placing reliance on him they stated as per his instructions. They have also deposed in their affidavits that they had stated about leaving key in the truck under confusion that key might have left in the truck whereas no key was left in truck and one key was given by the driver at the office of the insurance company and another key was found at the house of the complainant. There is no rebuttal of these affidavits by the investigator of the insurance company and cannot be discarded whereby no violation of any condition of the insurance company is proved.
10. In view of above discussion complainant is entitled for reimbursement of the loss caused to the complainant on account of theft of the truck which is Rs1300000.

11. The question formulated above is decided in favor of the complainant.

12. We hereby direct the Ops to reimburse the complainant for loss caused to the complainant at Rs. 1300000 with pendente lite and future interst at the 9% per annum.
13. Ops shall comply with the direction within 30 days failing which Ops shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
14. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment