HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Kathuria, President;
Mr. Banarsi Das and Mrs. Shakuntla Yadav, Members
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.—Appellant
versus
NARESH KUMAR—Respondent
First Appeal No. 3818 of 2001—Decided on 21.9.2005
Insurance - Motorcycle Insurance - Section 380, IPC - Clause 4 of the Insurance Policy - [Section 380, IPC, Clause 4 of the Insurance Policy]
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's motorcycle was stolen while left unattended, and the insurance claim was repudiated on the ground of violating the insurance policy terms.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the motorcycle was left unattended without proper precautions, violating the insurance policy terms, and referred to similar cases where such violations led to dismissal of complaints.
Issues: Violation of insurance policy terms, negligence in safeguarding the motorcycle, and the admissibility of the complainant's statement to the Surveyor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that leaving the motorcycle unattended without proper precautions violated the insurance policy terms, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the complaint was dismissed.
Mr. Justice R.C. Kathuria, President—This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.10.2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant, direction has been given to the appellant-opposite party to release Rs. 31,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% to be calculated after two months from the date of theft of the motorcycle i.e., from 1.9.1999 till realisation.
2. Naresh Kumar-complainant had insured his motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-36B-0379, with the appellant-Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 37,000 for the period from 25.2.1999 to 24.2.2000 vide cover note No. DR/98-912247 dated 25.2.1999. On 1.7.1999 the father of the complainant Mr. Daulat Ram while leaving the said motorcycle outside the Medical Store went to purchase the medicines. At that time some unidentified youth sped away with the motorcycle. FIR No. 211 dated 1.7.1999 under Section 380, IPC was also got recorded with the Police Station City Rewari. On the same day intimation with regard to the theft of the motorcycle was given to the appellant. All the requisite documents for putting the claim, were sent to the appellant but the claim was repudiated on 14.8.2003 on the ground that terms of the insurance policy have been violated by the complainant. Aggrieved by the action of the appellant, the complainant filed the present complaint seeking the recovery of the amount of Rs. 37,000/- along with interest @ 18% from the date of theft till the payment of compensation besides a sum of Rs. 5,000 on account of mental pain and agony and Rs. 5,000 as cost of litigation.
3. The appellant contested the claim of the complainant. It was pleaded by it that on receipt of the report from the complainant, a Surveyor was appointed who reported that the key of the motorcycle was left in the motorcycle itself by the father of complainant when he had gone to purchase the medicines from the medical store located opposite main bus stand, Rewari. It was further stated that the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy required the complainant to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the motorcycle from the loss and damage and as the said terms and conditions have been violated by the complainant, repudiation of the claim was rightly made. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.
4. The District Forum on appraisal of the pleadings and evidence adduced on record accepted the complaint in order dated 23.10.2001 and issued directions noticed earlier. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel representing both the parties at length.
6. At the threshold of the arguments, it has been strenuously urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the District Forum has not properly evaluated the evidence brought on record which has resulted in adverse findings against the appellant. The learned Counsel representing the respondent has justified the conclusion drawn by the District Forum on the basis of evidence on record. In order to appreciate the submission made, it will be appropriate to notice the findings of the District Forum recorded in para No. 6 of its order reads as under :
“Learned Counsel for respondent has relied heavily on the statement made by complainant’s father to Surveyor which is Ex. O.P. 3. He has drawn attention of the Forum to the last lines where it is written that “GARI KI CHABI GARI MEIN LAGI THI”. However, Surveyor in his report which is Ex. OP 2 has stated that insured produced one key of motorcycle, although report also relies in the statement of insured’s father that the keys were left in motorcycle. FIR suggests that a persuit was made, but in vain.”
7. It is common case of the parties that on 1.7.1999, the father of the complainant had gone to Medical Store in order to purchase medicines, on motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-36B-0379. He left the m
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.