PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.- 06/2022

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

Srubali Oram,

W/O- Kilidas Oram, 

R/o-Tileimal, Oram pada

Po-Bomaloi, Ps-Thelkulei, Dist-Sambalpur,

Odisha-768212, 9668239332                       ...………..Complainant/Applicant

                                                Versus

The Branch Manager,

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co.Ltd.

Sambalpur Branch,

At/PO-Budharaja, Ps-Ainthapali

Dist-Sambalpur-768004                                       …………...Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :-Sri. P.K.Mahapatra, Advocate & associates
2. For the O.P.                        :-Sri. B.K. Purohit, Advocate

Date of Filing:22.02.2022,     Date of Hearing :11.04.2023,     Date of Judgement : 19.06.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is the owner of one vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD 15-Q 8541. The vehicle solely insured by the OP. On dtd. 31.01.2021 at about 6.30 P.M, the vehicle was kept in front of the Complainant’s house and when the Complainant came from her house the vehicle was stolen by someone and the Complainant searched several place but she could not traced out her vehicle, soon after she went to Thelkoloi Police Station and lodged a FIR vide P.S Case No. 20 dtd. 10.02.2021. The Complainant informed to the Insurance Company for settlement of claim and the Complainant has submitted all the relevant documents but the OP has not taken any steps for payment of the said amount. The Complainant is eligible to get compensation for her stolen vehicle as in this case norms are fulfilled/required insurance policy is duly and timely paid. Non payment of this compensation in time amount to non-performance specific discharge of service as per Consumer Act.
2. The Written Version of the O.P is that this is a case filed by the Complainant claiming compensation from the Insurance Company on the allegation that the insured vehicle was stolen by some unknown person while it was kept outside and her claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company. The Complainant is never denying that she had not made statement before the investigator and as such it has to be accepted that she had given the statement to the investigation, wherein it is clearly stated that she had left the key in the insured vehicle. As per the conditions Nos. 4 & 8 of the Policy, which inter alia say that “the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage” failing which the insurer is not liable. This goes to show that the insured herself had violated the Policy conditions and as such as per the provisions of law and established principles, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any claim under the Policy and as such the complaint may be dismissed. In this connection, the OP relies on the Judgment of Reliance General Insurance vs Vinod Kumar.
3. From the documents and evidences submitted by the Complainant it is found that the Complainant had a valid insurance Policy of the OP at the time of stolen of the vehicle. In the other hand there is no evidences given by the OP which proof that the insured shall not take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. So deficiency of service and unfair trade practice found against the OP. Accordingly the case is disposed of.

ORDER

The case is disposed of on merit. The OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 70,000/- towards compensation of stolen vehicle and Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and harassment and deficiency in service and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of the proceeding to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 19^th day of June, 2023.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.