Haryana

StateCommission

A/72/2015

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHIV KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

J.P.NAHAR

18 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA AT PANCHKULA

========

                  

First Appeal No	:	72 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	21.01.2015
Date of Decision	:	18.07.2016

 

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office, 4 B.P.Ist Floor, Neelam Bata Road, Faridabad through  its Divisional Manager/Principal Officer.

Now through its authorized signatory, Vikas Chaddha, Dy.Manager, Regional Office, SCO No.109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. 

…..Appellant

                        V E R S U S

 

Shiv Kumar son of Sh.Ram Nath, resident of House No.FCA-1183, Block-C,S.G.M.Nagar, NIT, Faridabad.

 

……respondent

 

CORAM:     Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

           Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                          

Present:   Shri J.P.Nahar, Advocate counsel for appellant.

           Shri S.K.Bishnoi, Advocate counsel for respondent.

ORDER

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER  

 

1.      The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd-OP is in appeal against the order dated 11.11.2014 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Faribadad with a direction that OP shall pay the amount of Rs.32,000/- alogwith interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.       Briefly stated, the complainant got the vehicle bearing No.HR51/Z-0970 insured with the OP vide cover note No.2724000/31/2010 /2411109000020851 dated 23.09.2009 from OP which was valid upto 22.09.2010, for an insured amount of Rs.32,000/- and for which the complainant paid a premium of Rs.812/- to the OP on 15.03.2010, the complainant was going on his motor cycle No.HR51/Z-0970 from village Budhena, District Faridabad to his house situated at S.G.M.Nagar, NIT, Faridabad at about 7 P.M.When the complainant reached ahead to village Hussinpur Kalan at the turning of village Dhodi Ganj, then he parked his motorcycle for a while. Then suddenly one Shamim son of Abdula Ansari, came there and he started the motorcycle of the complainant and fled away from the spot alongwith the motorcycle of the complainant. Then he tried his level best to trace out his motorcycle, but he could not succeed. Later on, he lodged the FIR/DDR regarding the missing of his motorcycle at Police Station Budal vide case No.311/10 u/s 379 IPC.  The complainant informed the OP immediately regarding the theft of his motorcycle and also informed the local Divisional Office of the OP situated at Muzaffar Nagar (U.P.) on the same day. Since, then the complainant had been trying in vain to locate the vehicle. Even the complainant also submitted his claim form with the OP about the theft of his vehicle, but without any success. Ultimately, the complainant approached the District Forum to pay a sum of Rs.32,000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses, alleging deficiency in service on their part.

3.       Since OP did not appear before the District Forum probably due to non receipt of the notice, they were proceeded exparte. The learned District Forum accepted the complaint and granted the aforesaid relief.

4.       Against this order, the OP has filed Appeal before us contending that the learned District Forum has accepted the complaint without any legal justification. It was a mandatory requirement of terms and conditions of the policy that the complainant was required to keep proper care of the vehicle’s security, but even according to his own showing he negligently left the key of the vehicle in a bag alongwith a mobile etc. Further, immediately after the alleged theft of the vehicle, no prompt reporting was made to the local police or the OP-insurance company, even though it is asserted by the complainant that he knew that the theft had been committed by one Shamim son of Abdula Ansari resident of village Husainpur Kalan. All this goes to prove that there was complete violation of condition No.4 of the terms and conditions of the Policy, reproduced as under:

“The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured in the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk”

 

5.       In addition to this, the version of the complainant does not inspire confidence as he has himself admitted that on 15.03.2010, he was going to a place other than his house whereas the vehicle was stolen at some other place. Not only that instead of reporting the matter to the police station at Faridabad, he has reported the matter in some police station in Utter Pradesh. Hence, we do not find the version of the complainant as set out in his complaint worthy of acceptance. Consequently, the appeal of the OP is accepted and the order dated 11.11.2014 of the learned District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed with or order as to costs.

6.       The statutory amount of Rs.22,545/-deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/ revision, if any.

 

July, 18^th, 2016           Urvashi Agnihotri                    R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                    Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                            Addl.Bench