IMPORTANT POINT
Act of leaving vehicle unattended without lock tantamount to gross negligence.

Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present first appeal has been filed against the order dated 08.12.2016 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (‘the State Commission’) in CC no. 23 of 2015.

2. The facts of the case as per the appellant/ complainant are that the appellant’s vehicle no. HR 74 A 0319 was insured with the respondent/ opposite party/ insurance company. According to the appellant, the said vehicle was stolen on 12.07.2014. The information of theft was given to the insurance company and the insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that the appellant did not completely secure his vehicle. After the theft of the vehicle according to the appellant, the police did not register the report, the report was got registered with the concerned Magistrate. Therefore, no adverse notice should be taken for the delay in filing of the police report. The appellant prayed for the IDV of the vehicle be given to him.

3. The respondent/ insurance company in the reply stated that the incident of theft was of 12th July 2013 while the police report was registered on 12th August 2013. Delay has been committed in getting the report registered and the information was also given to the insurance company only on 16th July 2013. Besides the appellant had left the vehicle without security on the road, which was a breach of the policy conditions.

4. The State Commission vide its order 08.12.2016, while dismissing the complaint observed as under:

“We have considered the arguments of both the parties. After considering all the facts it has been felt doubtful to us. We doubt about the occurrence of this incident also. The judicial pronouncements of which the complainant forcefully taken the grounds they also cannot be applied to this case. It is correct that if the driver of the complainant goes for toilet after standing the vehicle then it cannot be taken of that he had not taken care of security of vehicle but the judgment which has been produced by the Advocate of the complainant is not applicable. In one case the key of the vehicle was not taken out because the vehicle was standing before them, that was at such a distance that he could have seen that. In the other case it has been taken that it was not expected the driver to take the key of the vehicle because he was in great hurry. In the present case also in case it is taken that the driver of the vehicle was in great hurry as he had to be free from toilet, he stopped the vehicle on the bank of the canal because water was available there. But it is a matter of surprise that even though there was such a hurry he went three or four fields away for toilet this fact has been stated by the complainant in his complaint which he had produced before the Magistrate. Therefore, this fact is belied that the driver was in extreme hurry, in haste he forgot to take the key and even thereafter he had gone three – four fields away for toilet. This fact is admitted by the complainant himself that the locks of the gates of the cabin were not working and the vehicle could also be started without even the key then in such a situation leaving the vehicle will be said to be breach of the conditions. Besides, this it is also the fact that mostly there is one cleaner in the vehicle and what was such a condition that at that time only the driver was available in the vehicle and cleaner was not there and why he did not go with him, no reason of this has also come to be proved. The policy may not have registered the report with regard to this incident, of this also there is no basis, the report has been registered after one month under the order of the Magistrate. The information has also been given to the insurance company after four days the insurance company also could not get the truth of the incident verified.

On all these facts it appears that this incident is suspicious. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed which is hereby dismissed looking to the