Haryana

StateCommission

A/11/2015

RELIANCE GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VINOD KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK GOYAL

05 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :          11 of 2015

Date of Institution:        07.01.2015

Date of Decision :         05.08.2015

 

The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Reliance Centre, 19, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Balliard Estate, Mumbai-400001 at present site office at City Centre, 1^st Floor, Opposite I.D. College, Panipat.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Vinod Kumar s/o Sh. Kanshi Ram, Resident of Village and Post Office Teha, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Deepak Goyal, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Narender Kumar Bhiwan, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated May 8^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Panipat.

2.      Vinod Kumar-Complainant (respondent herein) got his truck bearing registration No.HR-42D-4649, insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’) from March August 20^th, 2009 to August 19^th, 2010, vide Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-2). The Insured Declared Value (for short ‘IDV’) of the truck was Rs.7,07,000/-. On June 16^th, 2010, the truck was stolen in the area of Village Pawti, Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat. He immediately informed the Police. F.I.R. No.278 (Exhibit C-3) was lodged in Police Station, Samalkha on June 22^nd, 2010. Intimation was given to the Insurance Company. The Police submitted untraced report Exhibit C-4. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter (Exhibit R-2). The extract of the repudiation letter (Exhibit R-2) is as under:-  

“This is with reference to the subject claim. On receipt of Claim Intimation from you, we had deputed M/s IPSO FACTO to assess/investigate the loss. We are in receipt of survey/investigation report along with relevant claim documents submitted by you. While analyzing the claim documents, we have observed the following:

1. Ignition key was left inside the ignition switch of the vehicle and the cabin door was also opened.

As per policy condition 5……….”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 effect any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk”.

We empathize with the loss sustained by you but regret to inform you that the loss is not payable due to violation of Policy Terms & Conditions and reasons stated above. In view of the same, we are constrained to repudiate the claim and this claim may please be treated as closed.

We regret we could not consider your claim favourably and trust that you would understand and appreciate our point of view”.

3.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      The Insurance Company contested the complaint by filing reply reiterating the facts stated in the repudiation letter (Exhibit R-2) and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

5.      After evaluating the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on the record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and issued direction to the Insurance Company to pay Rs.7,07,000/-, that is, the insured amount alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization and Rs.2200/- as cost of litigation.

6.      The question for consideration before this Commission is as to whether the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating complainant’s claim or not?

7.      In appeal before this Commission, the impugned order has been assailed on two grounds. Firstly, that the driver had left the ignition key in the ignition switch of the truck which was in violation of condition No.5 of the Insurance Policy. Secondly, that F.I.R. was lodged with the Police after six days and information to the Insurance Company was given after about 29 days from the date of occurrence and therefore, the complainant was not entitled for the benefits of insurance.

8.      The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable. So far as the condition No.5 of the Insurance Company is concerned, it has been clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. (Exhibit C-3) that truck was stolen when the driver parked it on road side and went to ease himself, forgetting to remove the keys from ignition and a mobile phone inside the truck. He came back and found that the truck was stolen.

9.      In National Insurance Company Limited vs. Kamal Singhal, IV(2010) CPJ 297 (N.C.), Hon’ble National Commission held as under:

“Repudiation of claim made by Insurance Company was also found to be invalid for the reason that since driver was not expected to carry key of the vehicle with him while getting down from the vehicle to answer nature’s call, particularly, when the vehicle was within his sight”.

10.    Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Bajaj Alianz General insurance Company Ltd., vs M/s Sagar Tour and Travels and Another, decided on 11.08.2011 has held that “this clause, I would understand, would mean that the insured shall take reasonable steps for protection. Retention of a key in the car ought not to be at all times taken as constituting so serious breach as to disentitle the insured to make the claim under the policy. It all depends on facts of the case. The car was said to have been lost at the time when the driver had taken the vehicle and parked the vehicle in front of the house of his relative but did not remove keys. The particular Clause 5 extracted above shall be read in the context of a person deliberately doing an act that resulted in theft. If no willful act could be attributed to the insured then, in my view, this clause cannot operate to exclude the liability of the insurance company. A human fallibility to forget is not the same as committing violation of terms of the policy. The permanent Lok Adalat had taken care to case some portion of liability on the insured and has denied to him the 25% of the sum insured under the policy. Thankfully for the insurance company, claimant himself has not come by means of any writ petition seeking for the entire amount”. 

11.    A reference of Kamal Singhal and M/s Sagar Tour and Travels and Another cases (Supra) has also been made by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.590 of 2014, New India Assurance Company Limited and another vs. Shri Girish Gupta, decided on July 31^st, 2014.  

12.    In view of above, the first ground on which the impugned order is assailed, is repelled.

13.    Coming now to the second contention with respect to the delay of six days in lodging F.I.R. and delay in giving intimation to the Insurance Company, Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited versus Nitin Khandelwal, IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), held that in the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition is not germane and the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer.  

14.    Indisputably, the truck was insured with the Insurance Company and the same was stolen during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy. F.I.R. (Exhibit C-3) was lodged with the Police and intimation was given to the Insurance Company. Untraced Report (Exhibit C-4) was submitted by the Police. F.I.R. is the best piece of evidence to prove the theft of the truck. So, the claim of the complainant was wrongly repudiated by the Insurance Company. Thus, the second ground on which the impugned order was challenged is also rejected.

15.    In this view of the matter, the order passed by the District Forum requires no interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

16.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 05.08.2015

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL