Delhi

North West

CC/664/2013

DHARAMBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA AIG GENERAL INS.CO. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION-V, NORTH-WEST GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/664/2013
( Date of Filing : 06 Jun 2013 )
 
1. DHARAMBIR SINGH
N.A.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. TATA AIG GENERAL INS.CO.
N.A.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  NIPUR CHANDNA PRESIDING MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 23 Jul 2024
Final Order / Judgement

MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 

ORDER

23.07.2024

1.         A complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act filed. In brief the facts are that complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration no. HR-55K-8304 (truck) duly insured with the OP vide policy bearing no. 0151930939 w.e.f. 05.06.2012 to 04.06.2013 for a sum insured of Rs. 16 Lakh. The vehicle in question was financed by M/s Punjab Kashmir finance Co. Ltd.

2.       On 14.10.2012, at about 9:00 PM complainant got the order of supplying the goods and as such the driver of the vehicle namely Salamuddin and conductor took the vehicle for loading the goods. When they reached at Loni, they parked the vehicle at Indira Puri bus stands no.2 and after the locking the steering and removing the starting key, locked the door of the vehicle and went to the tyre puncture shop for repairing the stephney and after taking the meal when they came back where they parked the aforesaid vehicle they did not find the vehicle on that spot. The driver and conductor both searched the vehicle but failed to get the whereabouts and as such immediately rushed to P.S Loni and lodged the FIR in respect to the theft of the vehicle in question. The officials of P.S Loni, Ghaziabad registered the FIR bearing no. 948/2012 u/s 379 IPC. The complainant approached OP Ins. Co. and wrote a letter dated 19.10.2012 and lodged the theft claim with OP vide claim no. 620549435-B. Vide letter dated 29.03.2013 the OP Ins. Co. repudiated the claim of the complainant stating that the incident of theft took place due to negligence of driver and conductor as such the claim is not payable. Vide letter dated 03.04.2013, complainant handover to the officials of the OP starting key and door lock key with further request of reconsideration of the claim. It is further alleged by the complainant that the OP did not consider his request and as such he sent a legal noticed dated 07.05.2013 to the OP Ins. Co. thereby calling upon it to disburse the claim in question. The OP Ins. Co. did not provide any satisfactory reply to the legal notice as well as failed to release the claim amount. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the OPs complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance.   

3.       Notice of the complaint was sent to OP. OP  file its written statement wherein it denied any deficiency in service on its part. It is further stated that the complainant informed the OP Ins. Co. about the incident on 18.10.2012 whereas the alleged theft occurred on 14.10.2012 i.e. after the delay of four days. The complainant also lodged the FIR with P.S. Loni, Ghaziabad on 18.10.2012 i.e. after the delay of four days. The complainant clearly violates the condition no.1 of the policy which says that the notice shall be given in writing to the company upon the occurrence of the any accidental or loss or damage. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of the claim under the policy the insured shall gave immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender. It is further stated that the complainant violate the policy terms and conditions resulting in the hampering of timely investigation in the present matter by policy in respect to the recovery of the vehicle in question. It is further stated that after receiving of the intimation of the theft M/s Vikas Kumar and associates was appointed to investigate the claim who in his report has submitted that the driver and the cleaner left the insured vehicle unattended for taking meal leaving behind the ignition key in the ignition lock and cabin door open resulting in the theft of the vehicle. The complainant violate condition no.5 of the policy terms and condition which says that the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage, as such the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated for the breach of policy terms and conditions no.1 and 5. It is further prayed that the present complaint be dismissed with cost having no merits.

4.       Rejoinder to the WS of OP filed wherein the contents of written statement was simply denied. Complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of his complaint.

5.       Complainant has placed on record the copy of insurance policy, copy of registration certificate, copy of the FIR,  copy of letter dated 19.10.2012 issued by OP Ins. Co., copy of untraced report as well as repudiation letter dated 29.03.2013 and copy of legal notice dated 07.05.2013  in support of his contention.

7.       Md. Azhar Wasi Head North Zone claim filed his evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OP. OP has placed on record the copy of the surveyor report, copy of statement of the driver Salamuddin, owner Sh. Dharambir in support of his contention.

8.       Written arguments filed by the parties.

9.       During the pendency of the present complaint case complainant has placed on record copy of MOU dated 31.03.2018 vide which the complainant had settled the outstanding dues with the finance company M/s Punjab & Kashmir finance and the finance company issued NOC in favor of the complainant.

9.       We have heard  the arguments advance at the bar by Sh. Kamal Bhardwaj counsel for complainant as well as Sh. Manoj Kumar counsel for OP and have perused the record.

10.     The sole question for our consideration in the present complaint case is whether the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by OP Ins. Co. is justified or not.

11.    A perusal of the record and the contents of the FIR show that on 14.10.2012           the paid driver of the complainant along with the conductor left the truck unattended with its original key inside the ignition lock and went to the tyre puncture shop for repairing the stephony and after giving the stephony for repairing both the driver and conductor went for taking the meal. The thief took the advantage of the situation and ran away with the truck using the same key.  As a result, it became an invitation to a person passing through the vehicle to take advantage of the aforesaid negligence on the part of the truck driver, and commit theft of the truck using the key which the driver had left in its ignition.  Since both the driver and conductor had left the vehicle unattended.  Therefore, it can hardly be disputed that they had failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the insured vehicle from loss or damage.  They had thereby contravened condition No.4 of the insurance policy.

12.     A similar issue  came up for consideration before Hon’ble NCDRC in RP No.1893 of 2016 & RP No.3198 of 2016 Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ashish Kumar Walecha and Ashish Kumar Walecha Vs. Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. decided on 20.04.2017.  In Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), the complainant had left the key of the vehicle in the ignition while going to meet a friend residing nearby.  When he returned after 30 minutes, the vehicle was found missing.  The theft was later reported to the police and intimation of the theft was also given to the insurer. The claim was rejected by the insurer vide a repudiation letter dated 09.07.2012 which read as under:

"With reference to the claim documents submitted it has been observed that on 20.10.2011 as usual you have gone to your friend's residence and parked the vehicle opposite to his residence at Garba ground, Samata Colony.  Leaving the key in the ignition itself you have gone to meet your friends.  Upon returning after half an hour it was noticed that the vehicle was missing from the parked place.  This has lead to your vehicle being stolen.

 This constitutes breach of policy condition No.5 which is reproduced below for reference:

Condition No.5 -

The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from the loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient 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 breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damages or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are affected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured's own risk".

          Being aggrieved from the rejection of the claim, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.  The complaint having been dismissed by the District Forum, but having been partly allowed by the State Commission, the insurer approached this Commission by way of a revision petition.  This Commission inter-alia observed and held as under:

"6.     By leaving the key of the car in the ignition and not locking the vehicle, the complainant failed to take reasonable steps for safeguarding the vehicle from loss, since leaving the key in the ignition of the vehicle would tempt any thief to commit theft of the vehicle, when the vehicle is left unlocked.  The complainant therefore, contravened condition no.5 of the insurance policy in the aforesaid manner.  In view of the breach of the above referred condition, the insurer is not liable to reimburse the complainant for the loss suffered by him on account of his own negligence.

13.  A similar issue came for consideration before Hon’ble NCDRC in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Vinod Kumar, RP No.157 of 2016 decided on 20.07.2016 where the ignition key was left inside the ignition switch of the vehicle and the door of the vehicle was also open.  Dismissing the complaint, this Commission inter-alia held and observed as under:

"5.     ........If the driver of the vehicle leaves the key in the ignition and also does not lock the door of the vehicle while going to a place from where the vehicle would not be visible to him, such an act in my opinion, amounts to a failure to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. The driver knew that if he left the key in the ignition and the door unlocked, anybody could commit theft of the vehicle taking advantage of his being away from the vehicle. Therefore, it would be difficult to dispute the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle.

14.   Admittedly, in the present complaint also the driver of the vehicle left the ignition key in the vehicle thereby facilitating the thief to steal the vehicle and as such the complainant failed to take the reasonable care of the vehicle in question and violate condition no.4 of the policy terms and conditions as such the OP Ins. Co. repudiated the claim.

15.  In the present complaint case the incident of theft took place on 14.10.2012 and complainant lodged the FIR with P.S Loni on 18.10.2012 as well as informed the OP Ins. Co. on 18.10.2012 whereas per the policy terms and  condition no.1 the complainant has to inform the insurance company immediately which the complainant failed and has thus violate conditions no.1 of the policy as such the repudiation is justified as  the delay in intimation hamper the timely investigation of the matter by the police in recovery of the vehicle. (Reliance has been placed  upon the judgment of  Hon’ble Supreme Court title as National Ins. Co. Ltd. vs. Nitin Khandelwal in Civil appeal no. 3409 of 2008 decided on 08.05.2008)

16.  In view of the above discussion as well as the citation mentioned above, we are          of the considered opinion that the repudiation of the claim by OP is justified and legal. We, therefore, find no merits in the present complaint case, same is hereby dismissed.

File be consigned to record room.

17.  Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry. Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on   23.07.2024.

 

 

(SANJAY KUMAR)                (NIPUR CHANDNA)                        (RAJESH)

PRESIDENT                                     MEMBER                               MEMBER

 

 

 
 
[ NIPUR CHANDNA]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.