Back
2009(2) CPR 26 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President and B.K. Taimni, Member
The New India Assurance Company
Limited —Petitioner
versus
T.V. Sarathi —Respondent
Revision Petition No. 2555 of 2005
Decided on 19.3.2009
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mrs. Pankaj Bala Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Nemo.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where respondent failed to take proper steps to safeguard his property, repudiation of claim by insurance company was held to be justified.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b) —Video camera of respondent complainant insured with petitioner company stolen at a bus stand—Repudiation of claim on ground that complainant had not taken reasonable steps to safeguard property insured—Complaint—Allowed by District Forum—Appeal—Dismissed by State Commission—Revision petition—In the FIR, the complaint as well as in the affidavit filed by way of evidence, respondent had stated that after keeping suitcase at a place where people sit in the bus stand, he went to a sweet shop and when he came back, he found that suitcase containing suit property had been stolen—Admission made by respondent that he left camera unattended to go to a sweet-shop clearly showed that respondent did not take reasonable care/steps to safeguard his property—He was clearly negligent in leaving camera unattended at a busy place like bus stand—Case of petitioner was clearly covered by all risk policy condition No. 3 which provided that insured was required to safeguard property insured and insurance company would not be liable for loss/damage of unattended property—Impugned order of District Forum and State Commission held unsustainable—Revision petition allowed. (Paras 12, 13)
Result: Revision petition allowed.
Ashok Bhan, President—New India Assurance Company Limited-petitioner herein, which was the opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore, Urban District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short), has filed the present revision petition.
2. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are:
3. The respondent complainant is a professional photographer and he purchased a video camera with accessories on 23.11.1998 for a total sum of Rs.1,42,810 by raising a loan. He insured the said video camera and said accessories with the petitioner for the period 26.3.2001 to midnight of 25.3.2002. The case of the respondent is that the said camera was stolen on 18.2.2002 at 12.00 p.m. at BMTC bus-stand, Kalasiaplyam, Bangalore. In this connection, he filed a complaint before the police, a copy of which has been placed on record. The complainant also informed about the theft of the insured equipment to the petitioner on 20.2.2002. Petitioner repudiated the claim on 29.7.2002 on the ground that the complainant had not taken reasonable steps to safeguard the property insured. The respondent aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim by the petitioner, filed a complaint before the District Forum in which notice was issued.
4. The petitioner justified the repudiation by relying upon the all risk policy condition No.3 where it is stated that the insured had to take reasonable steps to safeguard the property insured and that it would not be responsible for loss/damage of the unattended property.
5. It was ascertained that the respondent had failed to take proper steps to safeguard the property and, consequently, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. It was also contended that from the allegation made in the complaint, it is clear that respondent had left the equipment at the bus-stand without any attendant while going to the sweet-shop. That in the complaint lodged with the police, the respondent has shown the value of equipment as Rs. 45,000 whereas in the complaint filed before District Forum, the respondent has claimed Rs. l,40,000.
6. Respondent, in support of the complaint, filed his own affidavit in evidence. The petitioner also filed affidavit of the Assistant Administrative Officer and that of one Shri K. Naga Bhushan Reddy, Investigator and also produced the report submitted by the investigator. Xerox copy of the insurance policy was also put on record.
7. District Forum allowed the complaint directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,42,000 with interest @ 6% p.a. from 29.7.2002 till payment along with cost of Rs.10,000. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short) which has been dismissed by the impugned order. It was held that the petitioner-insurance company has failed to produce any evidence to show that the complainant had left the camera unattended on the bus-stand.
8. Counsel for the respondent, Shri A.C. Balraj, has not appeared in spite of a notice sent to him for today’s hearing. Respondent is proceeded ex parte.
9. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner at length.
10. Petitioner had appointed M/s N.B. Associates, Bangalore to investigate the genuineness of the claim made. The Investigator valued the stolen items at Rs.45,000. It was also reported by him that respondent had left the suitcase containing the insured item unattended for a considerable time at a busy place. That the respondent had not taken proper steps to safeguard his property. Affidavit of Shri K. Naga Bhushan Reddy, Investigator was filed. The petitioner has repudiated the claim of the respondent on the basis of the report submitted by the investigator.
11. All risk policy condition No.3, reads as follows:
“As per risk clause: warranted that the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the property insured. Company is not liabl
