Delhi

East Delhi

CC/102/2019

DHARMENDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI RAM G.I.C. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.102/2019       

 

	DHARMENDRA SINGH S/O SH. ATTER SINGH R/O 1812/22, I-BLOCK, SANGAM VIHAR, NEW DELHI - 110080	….Complainant
Versus
	SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. E-8, EPIP RIICO, SITAPURA, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN) 302022	……OP1
	SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE 506-507, 6TH FLOOR, PRAGATI DEEP BUILDING, LAXMI NAGAR, DISTRICT CENTRE, DELHI - 110062	……OP2

 

 

Date of Institution	:	20.03.2019
Judgment Reserved on	:	24.07.2023
Judgment Passed on	:	28.07.2023

 

QUORUM:    

 

Sh. S.S. Malhotra	(President)
Ms. Rashmi Bansal	(Member)
Sh. Ravi Kumar	(Member)

 

Order By: Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

The present complaint was filed by the complainant against the deficiency in service by the OP w.r.t. repudiation of the insurance claim of his stolen vehicle by the OP, and the complainant is seeking for release of his claim amount along with compensation for harassment and mental agony, and also the litigation cost, with interest.  

1. It is the case of the complainant that he has got a ‘GCCV– Public Carrier Other than Three-Wheeler Package Policy Zone – C’ bearing number 101046/31/17/009042 from OP for an annual premium of Rs. 28,829/- for a period of 28.11.2016 - midnight of 27.11.2017 for his vehicle, a dumper, which he had purchased to earn his livelihood by self-employment. The said vehicle was stolen on 29.12.2016 and an e-FIR are was registered on the same day at the police station i.e. MV Theft, bearing number 038404 dated 29.12.2016. OP   was also informed on the same day i.e. 29.12.2016 vide his claim number 1000/31/17/C/063,108. The vehicle was being driven by his driver. OP   has appointed one investigator and as per the requirement he has submitted the necessary documents for processing of the claim. Complainant submits that it was informed to the investigating agency that at the time of the theft, the vehicle cabin was locked and two keys to the outside cable were with the driver, however, the investigator refused to take the said keys. The complainant further submits that he is being harassed by OP without any reason despite compliance of all the due procedures of informing the OP as well as the police and provided all the required documents to the investigating agency. The complainant submits that vide letter dated 22.03.2017, the OP has declined the complainant’s claim without any valid reason which is illegal and unethical. The legal notice dated 05.04.2017 sent by the complainant to the OP remained unanswered. His complaint dated 01.06.2017 to the grievous redressal officer was also not replied to and the complaint made to the insurance ombudsman, Delhi was also disposed of vide its order dated 29.11.2018, by upholding the decision of OP. The Complainant submits that because of the arbitrary action of OP, he has suffered mental harassment, agony and financial losses as his claim was wrongly rejected.  Complainant prays for release of his claim amount of Rs.5,70,000/- with 18% interest per annum, compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.  30,000/-.
2. Upon notice OP filed its reply stating that immediately upon receipt of the information of loss of vehicle of the complainant on 29.12.2016, it has appointed an IRDA licensed and independent surveyor/investigator who has submitted detailed report dated 01.03.2017 stating that there was deliberate and willful negligence on the part of the complainant/driver of the complainant which resulted in theft of the insured vehicle as the driver of the complainant has left the vehicle to roam nearby leaving the ignition key in vehicle lock. After 20 minutes when he returned to take the insured vehicle, he found that some unknown people were driving the insured vehicle. He tried to chase them but failed. Therefore, there was a breach of motor policy condition 5 which reads as follows –“the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from the loss or damage and to maintain it in officiant condition and the company shall have at all time 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 break down, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent for the damages or loss and if the vehicle driven before the necessary repairs are fitted, any extension of the damage or any further damage in the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured risk.” OP submits that on account of violation of the above-mentioned condition, the claim of the complainant was repudiated as “no claim” since there was deliberate and willful negligence on the part of the insured/driver of the complainant, which constituted theft of insured vehicle.
3. The complainant filed his rejoinder controverting the contention of the OP and reiterated his version in complaint. both the parties have filed their respective evidences supported by documents.
4. The complainant has filed following documents in support of his claim –
   1. The copy of the policy dated 28.11.2016, Ex. CW1/1;
   2. The copy of the E-FIR dated 29.12.2016, Ex. CW1/2;
   3. The copy of the appointment letter and report of the investigating agency, Ex. CW1/3 (colly);
   4. The copy of the reputation letter dated 22.03.2017, Ex. CW1/4;
   5. The legal notice dated 05.04.2017 and postal receipt, Ex. CW1/5 and EXCW1/6;
   6. The copy of the letter dated 01.06.2017, written to grievance redressal officer along with postal receipt and track report, Ex. CW1/7, CW1/8 and CW1/9;
   7. The copy of the order dated 29.11.2018 of insurance ombudsman, Ex. CW1/10;
5. OP has filed
   1. The copy of the investigation report, Ex. DW1/2;
   2. The copy of the repudiation letter dated 22.03.2017, Ex. DW1/3;
   3. The attested true copy of computer-generated insurance policy, Ex. DW1/4.
6. Heard the Ld.  Counsels for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.
7. The policy issued to the complainant is not disputed. The IDV of the vehicle was Rs. 5,70,000/-. The repudiation letter dated 22.03.2017 shows that the claim of the complainant was rejected by the OP due to ‘gross negligence i.e. the key was left in the vehicle and secondly delay in intimation to company and police.’
8. OP in its evidence has stated that they have received the information about the loss of the vehicle on 29.12.2016. Therefore, the objection with respect to the delayed intimation does not stand on its own legs.
9. The only issue to decide is whether there was ‘any negligence on the part of the complainant. The investigator report dated 22.03.2017 stated that the driver of the complainant has left the ignition keys in the vehicle lock. The statement of the complainant, as well as the driver, is also attached to the said report. The complainant has not disputed the same. It is admitted case of the complainant that the driver has left the vehicle unattended for some time. The testimony of the driver is that when he returned to take the insured vehicle, he found that some unknown person was driving the insured vehicle. He tried to chase the vehicle but failed. The keys to the outer cabin as per the complainant were lying with the driver. The said fact is not disputed by OP, which establishes that the driver of the vehicle was not very far from the vehicle and in a short span of time the vehicle was stolen before his eyes. Leaving the key in the ignition of the vehicle on all occasions cannot be termed as so serious breach, so as to disentitle the insured from seeking a claim under the insurance policy.
10. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s Nitin Khandelwal, IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), Apex Court has observed as under:-

“12. In the case in hand, the vehicle has been snatched or stolen. In the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane. The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The respondent submitted that ever assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non standard basis. The Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft”.      

11. Further Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘Amalendu Sahu versus Oriental Insurance Co Ltd’, II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC), has held that even in case there, there is a breach of warranty/conditions of the policy, an amount up to 75% of the admissible claim can be agreed to.
12. It is undisputed that at the time of the theft, the vehicle was insured.  It is also undisputed that intimation of theft was given to the insurance company and FIR was registered on the same day. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India no ground is made to reject the claim in toto in case of a stolen vehicle. Even if the ignition key is left in the vehicle lock,  then also it would be construed as a breach of terms and conditions and the claim is to be settled on a non-standard basis. Therefore, rejection of the claim of the complainant in toto by amounts to a deficiency in service on the part of OP. 
13. National Commission in New India Assurances Ltd. V/s Narayan Prasad II (2006) CPJ 144 NC has given guidelines for settling the claim on non standard basis.

Non- standard claims following types of claims shall be considered as non-standard and shall be settled as indicated below after recording the reasons:

Sr. No.		Percentage of Settlement
	Under declaration of licensed carrying capacity.	Deduct 3 years’ difference in premium from the amount of claim or deduct 25% of claim amount, whichever is higher.
	Overloading of vehicles beyond licensed carrying capacity.	Pay claims not exceeding 75% of admissible claim.
	Any other breach of warranty/condition of policy including limitation as to use.	Pay up to 75% of admissible claim.

 

14. Therefore, considering the above-stated judgments and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission directs OP to pay the claim to complainant on non-standard basis at 75% of the IDV i.e Rs. 4,72,500/- (75% of Rs. 5,70,000/-). A compensation of Rs.20,000/-  for harassment and mental agony is also awarded to the complainant to be paid by OP, which shall include the litigation cost.      
15. The above-stated orders be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the entire amount accrued till the 30th day shall carry interest at the rate of 6%, per annum till its actual realization by the complainant.
16. A copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per CPA rules and thereafter file be consigned to the record room after all the formalities.
17. The order contains 09 pages each bearing our signature.

Pronounce on –28.07.2023