Haryana

StateCommission

A/1089/2015

RELIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHARWAN CHHAJER - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.GOYAL

15 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1089 of 2015

Date of Institution:        18.12.2015

Date of Decision :         15.01.2016

 

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd Floor, 60 Okhla, Industrial Estate, Opposite State Bank of India, New Delhi -110020 through Shri Amit Chawla, Manager (Legal), Reliance General Insurance Company, SCO No.145-146, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party No.3

Versus

 

1.      Sharwan Chhajer son of Sh. Arun Kumar Chhajer, Resident of B-51, Noida, Gautambudh Nagar (U.P.)

Respondent/Complainant

2.      M/s Regent Automobile Private Limited, D-12, Okhla Industrial Area, behind Silvertone Motors, Phase-1, New Delhi-110020.

3.      M/s Regent Automobile Private Limited, 14/13, Mathura Road, Opposite Havells Company, Faridabad through its Director/Principal Officers.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 14^th October, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Sharwan Chhajer-complainant/respondent seeking compensation with respect to the loss of his car which was stolen during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy, was accepted directing the appellant/opposite party No.3 as terms:-

“……Opposite Party No.3 is directed to pay insured declared value of Rs.13,26,182/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till realization of amount and Rs.5500/- as compensation towards mental agony, harassment as well as Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order”.

2.      The respondent No.1/complainant, purchased a car, registration No.UP-16-AC-1960, Chevrolet Cruze LTZ 2.0, from M/s Regent Automobiles Private Limited-Opposite Party No.1 (respondent No.2 herein) on October 22^nd, 2010 and got it insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Insurance Company’)-appellant, for the period October 8^th, 2010 to October 7^th, 2011 for a sum of Rs.13,95,275/-. On December 29^th, 2010, the complainant handed over the car to opposite party No.1 for service and repair. The complainant was asked to take the delivery of the car, after service, on January 3^rd, 2011.

3.      On January 1^st, 2011, the opposite party No.1 informed the complainant that the car had been stolen from the show room and the DGM had already informed the police of Police Station Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi, vide Dairy Diary Report No.59-B dated 31^st December, 2010. The Insurance Company was also informed vide letter dated 31^st December, 2010 (Exhibit C-6). The complainant was out of station and returned on 6^th January, 2011. The Police registered F.I.R. No.12 (Exhibit C-7) under Section 406,379 of the Indian Penal Code on January 14^th, 2011.  The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter dated 27^th July 2011 (Exhibit C-9) on the ground that the vehicle was left unattended at the time of theft by leaving the ignition key in the drawer of the vehicle and thus there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.  Aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

4.      The Insurance Company in its reply reiterated the fact stated above and pleaded that the complaint be dismissed.

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order accepted complaint and issued direction to the Insurance Company as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has argued that since the car was left unattended by leaving the ignition key in the drawer of the car and therefore the insurer was not liable to pay the benefits of insurance to the complainant.

7.      The contention raised is not tenable. It is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased the new car from M/s Regent Automobiles Private Limited-opposite party No.1, on October 22^nd, 2010 and it was got insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. It is also not disputed that the car was handed over to M/s Regent Automobile Private Limited-Opposite Party No.2, for service and repair from where it was stolen. The DGM of M/s Regent Automobile Private Limited had informed the police of Police Station Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi and the Police recorded Dairy Diary Report No.59-B dated 31^st December, 2010. The Police registered Exhibit C-7.  The Insurance Company was also informed without any delay vide letter Exhibit C-6. Thus, the car was in the nature of bailment in the workshop.  Neither it can be termed as un-attended nor parked at a place which was in the nature of abandonment. After service, the car was to be handed over to the complainant. Thus, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant.

8.      In view of the above, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.  Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

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

 

Announced 15.01.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL