Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/1122

M/S PARNAMI GOODS COURIER - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI RAM GEN. INSU. CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SH.ASHISH BARGALE

29 Aug 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1122 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 01.05.2017 passed in C. C. No.798/2014 by District Commission, Indore-2)

 

M/S PARNAMI GOODS CARRIER,

THROUGH RAMAN S/O LATE SHRI DWARKA PRASAD

PARNAMI, PARNAMI TOWER, SECTOR 50-51,

SECOND FLOOR, OLD JUDICIAL,

GURGAON.                                                                                                          … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

101/102, ANMOL SPACE, 21, ANAND BAZAR,

BAIKUNTH DHAM, KHAJRANA MAIN ROAD,

INDORE (M.P.)                                                                                                   … RESPONDENT.                                

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                                     :  MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :        MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Ashish Bargale, learned counsel for the appellant. 

           Shri Mukesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.     

                  

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 29.08.2022)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

 

                  This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 01.05.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore-2 (for short the ‘District Commission’) in C. C. No. 798/2014 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant has been dismissed.

 

-2-

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case as narrated by the complainant are that the complainant is the owner of a truck bearing registration no.MP-09 HG-0780 which was insured with the opposite party-insurance company for insured declared value (IDV) of Rs.12,00,000/-.   During the currency of the insurance cover, on 24.03.2012, the subject vehicle was stolen, regarding which FIR was lodged and claim form was submitted with the insurance company. It is alleged that on 29.08.2012, the complainant’s claim was repudiated on the ground that the subject vehicle was not properly locked at the time of the incident. Alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party-insurance company, in not giving the IDV, the complainant/appellant filed a complaint before the District Commission, seeking relief.

3.                The opposite party/respondent resisted the complaint stating that the complainant had not timely intimated regarding the incident of theft to the insurance company.  It is further submitted that the vehicle was left unattended with keys inserted inside, when the theft took place.  

4.                The District Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant holding that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service against the opposite party/respondent-insurance company.  Hence, this appeal.

 

-3-

5.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission has not properly appreciated the evidence available in its record.  The opposite party/respondent has not led any evidence which could demonstrate that the keys of the subject vehicle were inserted in the vehicle at the time of incident and hence the vehicle was left unattended by the appellant.  The District Commission therefore, has erroneously dismissed the complaint, which deserves to be allowed.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent-insurance company argued that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality.  The driver of the subject vehicle had admitted that he had left the vehicle on road side.  There is no specific submission regarding locking of the vehicle, when the driver left the same. On aforesaid account, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. He placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble National Commission in Keer Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tata AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd. II (2018) CPJ 500 (NC), Bachhu Singh Vs National Insurance Co.Ltd. III (2017) CPJ 293 (NC), Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Chander Singh & Anr. IV (2016) CPJ 412 (NC) and Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Tara Singh (Through LRs) 2016 (4) CPR 170 (NC).

 

-4-

8.                It has categorically been held in the impugned order that driver Dharmraj (who also lodged FIR in the matter), has submitted in the FIR that he, along with the helper had gone to have tea, after leaving the vehicle on the roadside. There is no such mention in the FIR that he had locked the vehicle and taken out ignition keys before leaving it.  The District Commission has further held that driver Dharmraj has admitted of keeping the keys of the subject vehicle inside it, before the Investigator.

9.                We find that complainant/appellant in a letter dated 11.04.2012 addressing the opposite party/respondent (Exhibit D-5) has admitted the fact that the lock key was inserted inside the subject vehicle, when the driver and helper left it on the roadside. The complainant/appellant has also mentioned in the very same letter that one of the keys has gone with the vehicle and the other key had already been misplaced.

10.              The driver of the subject vehicle failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard his vehicle and hence the repudiation of claim by the respondent-insurance company cannot be held to be unjustified. The opposite party/respondent is benefitted by the judgments referred by him.

11.              In view of the above and also taking into consideration the fact that the complainant/appellant did not dispute the submissions and documents put forward by the opposite party/respondent, by way of leading any counter affidavit, we are of a considered view that the District

-5-

Commission has committed no illegality or infirmity in deriving at the aforesaid finding, whereby the complaint has been dismissed.

12.              Therefore, we conclude that this appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

(JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR) (S. S.BANSAL) (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                      

                  PRESIDENT                           MEMBER              MEMBER