BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL
Complaint Case No. 214 of 2020.
Date of institution: 22.07.2020.
Date of decision: 23.01.2024.
Ram Niwas s/o Shri Mahabir Singh, r/o village Khurana, Tehsil and District Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- The New India Assurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Cheeka Micro Office, behind TVS Showroom, Kaithal Road, Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.
- The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Karnal Claim HUB Gagan Building, Opposite Bus Stand, G.T. Road, Karnal-132001.
...Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act
CORAM: SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.
SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.
Present: Shri H.S. Nain, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri M.R. Miglani, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.
ORDER - NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT
Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), against the OPs.
2. It is alleged by the complainant that the complainant was the owner of motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-08U-6558 marka Platina 100 CC. He insured the said vehicle with OPs on 29.11.2018 28.11.2019 vide policy No.35440331180300001285 for a sum of Rs.24,000/-. That on 19.09.2019 at about 10:00 AM, his farther had gone to his field situated at village Malikpur and parked the said motorcycle in the field passage, from where, the said motorcycle was stolen by some unknown person when he came back at about 11:40 AM. He made inquiry to trace the same, but could not succeed and lodged FIR No.150 dated 22.09.2019 u/s 379 of IPC in PS Siwan. That the police could not trace the motorcycle and ultimately submitted untrace report to the learned Illaqa Magistrate, which was accepted by the said Court. He has also given intimation in this regard to OPs on 22.09.2019, who rejected his claim. The above act of OPs of rejecting his genuine claim, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part, due to which, he suffered physical and mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.
3. Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared before this Commission and filed written statement, admitting about insured of the motorcycle in question with them. It is further submitted that the complainant himself violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. That as per version of FIR, which was got lodged by the father of complainant that at the time of loss, the ignition key was left in the insured vehicle. This fact also admitted by the complainant in writing to Shamsher Singh, Investigator, which proves that reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle has not been taken by the complainant/insured, which is violation of Condition No.4 of the policy. Moreover, the complainant has informed the insurance company after three days of the alleged theft and FI:R also got lodged after three days of the alleged theft, which is also violation of terms and conditions No.1 and 9 of the policy, so the OPs has rightly repudiated his claim. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.
4. To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 & Annexure-C4.
5. On the other hand, OPs, in their evidence tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-3.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant was the owner of motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-08U-6558 marka Platina 100 CC and insured the said vehicle with OPs on 29.11.2018 28.11.2019 vide policy No.35440331180300001285 for a sum of Rs.24,000/-. He further argued that on 19.09.2019 at about 10:00 AM, farther of complainant had gone to his field situated at village Malikpur and parked the said motorcycle in the field passage, from where, the said motorcycle was stolen by some unknown person, when he came back at about 11:40 AM. He further argued that the complainant made inquiry to trace the same, but could not succeed and lodged FIR No.150 dated 22.09.2019 u/s 379 of IPC in PS Siwan. He further argued that the police could not trace the motorcycle and ultimately submitted untrace report to the learned Illaqa Magistrate, which was accepted by the said Court. He further argued that the complainant given intimation in this regard to OPs on 22.09.2019, who illegally rejected his claim. He further argued that the above act of OPs of rejecting his genuine claim, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs has argued that the complainant himself violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He further argued that as per version of FIR, which was got lodged by the father of complainant that at the time of loss, the ignition key was left in the insured vehicle. He further argued that this fact also admitted by the complainant in writing to Shamsher Singh, Investigator, which proves that reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle has not been taken by the complainant/insured, which is violation of Condition No.4 of the policy. He further argued that moreover, the complainant has informed the insurance company after three days of the alleged theft and FI:R also got lodged after three days of the alleged theft, which is also violation of terms and conditions No.1 and 9 of the policy, so the OPs has rightly repudiated his claim. He further argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal the present complaint. In order to support his above contentions, he placed reliance upon case law titled “Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Daljeet Singh Kashmeer Singh Batth, Revision Petition No.2405 of 2016, Date of Decision 09.01.2018 (National Commission)”.
9. Undisputedly the complainant is the owner of motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-08U-6558 Platina vide Registration Certificate Annexure C3, which was insured with the OPs for the period from 29.11.2018 to 28.11.2019 for IDV of Rs.24,000/-, vide policy No.35440331180300001285 Annexure C-1/R-3. The said motorcycle was stolen on 19.09.2019 and complainant lodged FIR bearing No.150 dated 22.09.2019 u/s 379 of IPC in Police Station Siwan and police submitted untrace report in this regard Annexure C-2.
10. The grievance of the complainant is that he lodged the claim with the OPs, who illegally and wrongly rejected the same. Contrary to it, the OPs has contended that father of complainant left the ignition key in the insured vehicle, which is violation of Condition No.4 of General Exceptions of the policy in question Annexure R-3, which reads as under:-
“4. The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all times 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 damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk”.
11. In order to support his above contentions, OPs has firstly drawn attention of this Commission towards statement of complainant Ram Niwas, recorded by Shamsher Singh, Investigator Annexure R-1, wherein, he specifically stated that his farther had gone to the field on the motorcycle in question and parked the motorcycle in the pakka passage and left the key in the motorcycle.
12. The OPs has further drawn attention of this Commission towards FIR Annexure C-2, got recorded by one Mahabir Singh (father of complainant) who had taken the motorcycle in question in the field, from where, it was allegedly stolen. In the said FIR, said Mahabir Singh (father of complainant) has specifically admitted that he had left the key in the motorcycle while parking the same near his fields. So, from perusal of above Annexure R-1 and Annexure C-2, it is crystal clear that father of complainant namely Mahabir Singh had left the key in the motorcycle, while parking the same near his fields, which is clear cut violation of Condition No.4 of General Exceptions of the policy in question Annexure R-3. For this, reliance is placed on the case law, produced by the OPs, titled Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Daljeet Singh Kashmeer Singh Batth (supra), wherein, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that “8. On bare perusal of the above, it is clear that as per condition no.4 of the insurance contract, the insured complainant was under, obligation to take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. Learned counsel for the petitioner in order to substantiate the aforesaid ground for repudiation has referred to the signed statement of the complainant Daljeet Singh s/o Kashmeer Singh recorded by the surveyor in vernacular wherein it is clearly recorded that driver of the truck had left the truck unattended with keys inside and went to have dinner. From the aforesaid statement, it is clear that driver of the truck was grossly negligent and had failed to take reasonable steps to protect the insured truck from loss or damage. Leaving of key inside the unattended truck obviously amounts to invitation to unscrupulous person to drive away the truck. Thus, in my view, the insurance claim was rightly repudiated by the insurance company”.
13. So, keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Superior Fora, referred to above as well as facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that father of complainant was grossly negligent while by leaving the key inside the motorcycle, obviously amounts to invitation to unscrupulous person to drive away the motorcycle, which was happened in the case in hand. Thus, the OPs have committed no mistake in rejecting the claim of the complainant on this very ground. Hence, we found no deficiency on the part of the OPs.
14. Hence, due to the reasons stated hereinbefore, present complaint is, dismissed, it being devoid on merits, leaving the complainant to bear his own costs of litigations. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission:
Dt.:23.01.2024.
(Neelam Kashyap)
President.
(Sunil Mohan Trikha). (Suman Rana).
Member. Member.
Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.
