STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited through its Manager, Quite Office No.10, First Floor, Sector 40B, Chandigarh.

                                                                .…Appellant

                                Vs.

1.        Sh. Bakshish Singh son of Sh. Bant Singh resident of House No.632, P.S.B. Complex, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh.

2.        Jaisveen Singh son of Sh. Bakshish Singh son of Sh.Bant Singh resident of House No.632, P.S.B. Complex, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh.

                                        …. Respondents 

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

Argued By: Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the appellant.

                  Sh.Rajesh K.Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.                    This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.07.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainants and directed the Opposite Party (now the appellant) as under:­

“10.          In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with following directions to OP to:-

i)         Pay an amount of Rs.5,99,000/- being the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle along with interest @9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e.18.12.2009 till the date of actual payment.

ii)     Pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

11.           This order be complied with by OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP shall be liable to pay Rs.5,99,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e.18.12.2009 till the date of actual payment besides the payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation”.

2.                    The facts, in brief, are that Sh.Bakshish Singh (Complainant No.1) was the owner of car Ford Fiesta (Model 2006) bearing Regd. No.CH-03-Y-0178, which was insured with the Opposite Party, vide Cover Note No.PH 7608544 for the period from 4.12.2008 to 3.12.2009. It was stated that on 8.5.2009, Sh. Jaisveen Singh (complainant No.2) was returning home, from Chasmis Chae, after attending a function and at about 11.45 PM, he stopped near Balongi Bridge to attend the call of nature. It was further stated that after attending the call of nature, he saw that four persons were fiddling with his car, and when he tried to stop them, they snatched the ignition keys, from him, and fled with the car. It was further stated that, on the next day i.e. 9.5.2009, complainant No.2, lodged F.I.R.  No.191 with P.S. Mohali. It was further stated that the complainants lodged the claim (Annexure C-3) with the Opposite Party, which appointed Sh.A.P.Singh, Surveyor to investigate the claim, who submitted his report dated 10.7.2009. The said surveyor asked the complainants to submit some documents, which were duly furnished to him. It was further stated that the untraced report prepared by the Police was not accepted by the Opposite Party, and rather it demanded final report under section 173 Cr.P.C. It was further stated that, as the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was not submitted by that time, by the Police, so it could not be furnished. It was further stated that the Opposite Party closed the claim as ‘No Claim’ without waiting for the said report. It was further stated that, later on, when the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was furnished, the same was submitted to the Opposite Party, but the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 18.12.2009, on the ground that sufficient care was not taken, which a prudent man ought to have taken to safeguard the vehicle. So, it was violation of terms and conditions of the policy.  When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                    In its written reply, the Opposite Party admitted that the car, in question, was insured with it for the period from 4.12.2008 to 3.12.2009.  It was stated that complainant No.2, had parked his vehicle unlocked, as one key was left in the ignition. It was further stated that complainant No.2, was required to take all reasonable care to ensure the safety of the vehicle, which he failed to do. It was further stated that the act of complainant No.2, in not taking due care of his vehicle, led to the theft of the same and, thus, the complainants violated the terms and condition of the policy. It was further stated that the claim was rightly repudiated.  It was further stated that, the Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

5.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant.

6.                    We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

7.                    The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the respondents took contradictory stand in the FIR and the complaint. He further submitted that the respondents in the complaint mentioned that respondent No.2 was attacked and something was sprayed, in his eyes, and the ignition key of the car was snatched from him, whereas, in the FIR, there was no mention regarding these facts. He further submitted that the keys of the car were left in the ignition unattended and, therefore, the respondents violated the terms and conditions of the policy, by not taking reasonable care and caution. He further  submitted that the appellant rightly repudiated the claim.

8.                    On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that the theft took place at about 11.45 pm. on the night of 08.05.2009 and the FIR was lodged on the next morning i.e. 09.05.2009 without any delay. He further submitted that the FIR was a mere skeleton, which was written by the Police Official and, as such, no details were required to be mentioned, in the same.  It was only the complaint, wherein, the complete averments of the incident, were required to be made and, as such, there was no contradictory stand, taken by the respondents, while drafting the complaint, as alleged, by the appellant.  He further submitted that the genuine claim of the complainants was illegally repudiated.

9.                    Though there is somewhat difference of version of the incident, given in the complaint, and the FIR, yet after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances  of the case and the evidence, on record,  we are of the view that that no contradictory stand was taken by the respondents, as alleged by the Counsel for the appellant. It was an admitted fact that theft of the vehicle, in question, took place.  Even minor contradictions, in the FIR and the complaint, regarding the narration of incident of theft could not be said to be sufficient to repudiate the genuine claim of the respondents. The driver of the vehicle was not required to take the ignition key with him, even when he went to answer the call of nature, especially, when the same (vehicle) was within his sight. It, therefore, could not be said that due care and caution was not taken by the driver of the vehicle, to safeguard the same and, thus, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the Policy. Therefore, the rejection of the claim of the respondents/complainants by the appellant/Opposite Party was wholly illegal, unjustified and uncalled for. We are, thus, of the considered opinion, that the District Forum, rightly allowed the complaint, by placing reliance upon National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamal Singla, IV (2010) CPJ-297 (NC). The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

10.                 The order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

11.                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with no order, as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

12.                 Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

13.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.                                                                          Sd/-

30.03.2012                                        [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

                                                                                                            Sd/                                   [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER