| Final Order / Judgement | Ld Advocates for the parties are present. Judgement is ready and pronounced in open Commission in 6 pages and 3 separate sheets of paper. BY - SRI. SAURAV CHANDRA, MEMBER - Brief facts of the Complaint Case is that the Complainant is owner of a commercial Vehicle No.WB-29A-9580 for the purpose of earning his livelihood which is duly insured from the Opposite Party vide a Vehicle Insurance Policy No. 51260031170100001077 for the period 28.11.2017 to 27.11.2018.
- On 13.09.2018 the said vehicle was stolen and reported to the Mahishadal Police Station vide FIR No.256/18, dated: 15.09.2018. The Final Report No.183/19 of which was submitted on 02.08.2019.
- On 20.09.2018, the Complainant lodged an insurance claim before the Op which was repudiated on 03.05.2021.
- The cause of action of this case arose on 03.05.2021.
The Complainant, therefore, prays for:- - To direct the Op to release the Claim of Rs.16,62,500.00 plus Interest from the date of filing of this petition.
- To pay Litigation Cost to the Complainant for conducting the case.
- Any other reliefs.
- Notice has duly served upon the Op. The Op appeared before this Commission through their Ld. Advocates and contested the case by filing Written Version, Questionnaire, List of Documents dated: 09.02.2024 containing a detail write up on the whole incident by the Complainant to the appointed Private Investigation Agency of the Op.
- While resisting the claim of the Complainant, the Op in its’ Para wise comments stated inter alia that this complaint is not maintainable in its present form and in law because the Complainant has intimated the incident of 14.09.2018 to the Op after Six Days of theft i.e. on 20.09.2018. Moreover, there was no actual theft of the vehicle and the Complainant willfully violated the prime conditions of the Insurance Policy for not parking the vehicle in the declared Garage place and also not observing proper safety measure and security for parking the vehicle but, parked the vehicle on unguarded National Highway No.41 at night at his own negligence and violation of Specific Condition of the Insurance Policy. The Complainant also failed to submit both the two set of keys of the vehicle to this Op but only one set submitted with a false plea. Therefore, the Op is under no obligation to indemnify the stated loss (if any).
- Under the above circumstances, the Op has prayed for dismissal of the present case.
- Points for determination are:
- Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?
- Decision with reasons
- Both the points I and II, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.
- We have carefully perused the Petition of the Complainant along with all papers and other documents.
- Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that there is no dispute that Complainant is a consumer having grievances against the Op, as such the case is maintainable in its present form and in law.
- In the instant case, the Complainant submitted copies of Policy Schedule-cum-Certificate of Insurance, Form X/Part–B issued by RTA, Certificate of Fitness, Tax Token, Pollution under Control Certificate, Smart Card, FIR, Complaint Letter before the Mahishadal Police Station, Vehicle Particulars issued by RTO, Letter to RTO submitted on 03.10.2018, Claim Repudiation Letter dated: 03.05.2021 and a List of Documents dated: 09.03.2024 containing accident claim letter before the Op dated: 05.02.2018, Charge Sheet/Final Report by Mahishadal Police Station dated: 02.08.2019.
- From the above submitted documents, it is carefully observed that one set of Keys were already lost earlier during movement of accidental vehicle on 03.02.2018 but, in spite of the same Op has settled the claim of the Complainant amounting to Rs.82,400.00 on 23.03.2018, which the Op has also clearly mentioned in its’ Repudiation Letter dated: 03.05.2021. According to the Op, the missing set of keys may be attributable to the theft incident. But, from the material of records there is no evidence either by the Private Investigating Agency appointed by the Op or the Investigation Police Officer of Mahishadal Police Station to establish the same. There is no such report at all by the Private Investigation agency as claimed in Paragraph No.18 of the Written Version however, in the said paragraph the incident of theft has been admitted by the Op.
- According to the Repudiation Letter of the Op, the vehicle has stolen from an unattended public place which violates Condition No.5 – “The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle insured from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the Company shall have at all times and full access to examine the vehicle insured or any part thereof or any driver or any employee of the insured.”
The word “Unattended Public Place” as mentioned by the Op is a vague term and contradictory too, which is totally irrelevant for the instant case. “Unattended Public Place” is a relative word which sometimes converted into “Attended Public Place” with the footfall of many people or vice versa. We do not find any wilful negligence on the part of the registered owner of the vehicle in maintaining the safety and security of the vehicle concerned. So, the above contentions regarding violation of Condition No.5 do not have any leg to stand upon. According to the Seizure List of the Charge Sheet/Final Report, it is evident that, the Complainant has produced most of the relevant document against his Vehicle No.WB-29A-9580 i.e. RC Book, Insurance Certificate of the Policy No. 512600311701000001077 and Authorisation Letter for driving his Vehicle by Sk.Rahul, Driver. Except the driving licence of the Driver to whom the Complainant suspects for the theft. Therefore, it is a very ridiculous question to ask the Complainant for a driving license of the escaped Driver to whom the Complainant suspects. - “The parking of vehicle on the National Highway No.41 which was not under custody of the insured’s garage” as alleged by the Op is not tenable at all. Vehicle is a moveable article and therefore it is not every time possible to return back and park in the insured’s garage. Rather, the Complainant being an insured takes reasonable steps in the night to safeguard the vehicle by checking whether the vehicle and the driver’s cabin are properly locked or not, after handover one set of Keys and Vehicle Papers by the Driver & Helper.
- It is also observed by this Commission, the Insurance Claim lodged by the Complainant on 20.09.2018 but, the same has been repudiated by the Op with a long delay i.e. on 03.05.2021 which is near about 2 Years 8 Months and is nothing but, unnecessary harassment to the Complainant. If the Op is denied to entertain the legitimate claim of the Complainant merely on the ground of 6 Days Lapse to intimate the incident as mentioned in Paragraph No.18 of the Written Version, why the delay in repudiating the claim for 2 Years 8 Months by the Op will be entertained by this Commission ? Above all, it appears from the Police Investigation Report shows the factum of theft of the vehicle is true, which will be concluded from the findings of investigation officer as “FR TRUE”.
- Now, coming to the matter of reliefs, the Op can’t get absolved from the mischief of negligence, harassment, deficiency in service. The Op is liable to pay the entire claim amounting to Rs.16,62,500.00 to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order in default the Op will be liable to pay simple interest @8% per annum in form of compensation in addition to the said amount for non-compliance from the date of this order till actual payment.
- Both the points are decided accordingly. Thus, the complaint case fully succeeds.
Hence, it is O R D E R E D That the CC-91 of 2021 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Op. The Op is hereby directed to pay the entire claim amounting to Rs.16,62,500.00 to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order in default the Op will have to pay simple interest @8% per annum in form of Compensation in addition to the said amount for non-compliance from the date of this order till actual payment. No order to costs. The Complainant would be at liberty to put the order into execution u/s 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and to initiate a proceeding u/s 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Let a copy of this judgment be provided to the parties free of cost. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. File be consigned to record section along with a copy of this judgment. | |
