SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Mahendra Singh and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.1239 of 2018
(Against the Order dated 20/02/2018 in Appeal No. 24/2017 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
Decided on 21.5.2019

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1: NEMO
For the Respondent No.2: Proforma Party

IMPORTANT POINT
If theft takes place on account of negligence of driver, the insurer cannot be made liable to reimburse the insured.—Para 9

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 12 – Theft of truck – Insurance claim for – Repudiation of – Driver and conductor left unlocked Truck unattended for about four hours and truck not visible to them at place where they slept – Negligence by truck driver – Steps to safeguard insured vehicle from loss or damage not taken – Condition No.5 of insurance policy contravened – Effect of – Held that, if the driver leaves the key in the ignition, he would be negligent and the theft taking place on account of his negligence, the insurer cannot be made liable to reimburse the insured. [Paras 6, 8 and 9]

       Result: Complaint dismissed

ORDER (ORAL)

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—No one is present for the complainant/respondent no.1 even on the second call. No one was present for him on the last date of hearing as well. Therefore, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered the record.

2. The complainant/respondent owned a truck which he had got insured with the petitioner company for the period from 04.08.2013 to 03.08.2014, for a sum assured of Rs.11,50,000/-. On 28.12.2013, Pratap Singh, driver of the insured truck accompanied by the conductor Mr. Mahendra, unloaded the goods in Alwar and thereafter, he brought the truck to the parking of Chetan Golden, and parked the vehicle there. After parking the vehicle, they went to sleep, leaving the keys of the vehicle in the ignition point. This happened at about 6 pm. When they driver returned to the vehicle at about 10 pm, the vehicle had already been stolen. The matter was reported to the police and the insurer was intimated.

3. The claim was repudiated by the petitioner vide its letter dated 10.03.2014 which, to the extent, it is relevant, reads as under:—

We invite reference to your claim for the above vehicle, against theft as reported to us on 31.12.2013. On perusal of your notarized statement and handwritten statement of your driver, it has been categorically confirmed that on that fateful your driver, Mr. Pratap Singh had parked the said vehicle in front of M/s. Chetan Golden Transport Company and had gone inside the company along with cleaner Mr. Mahendra Suthar to sleep, leaving behind the vehicle unattended with its ignition key its point. Here we would like to draw your attention to the policy condition No.5 which states that:—

“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 time 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 break down, the vehicle shall not left unattended without proper precaution being taken to prevent the further damages or loss and if the vehicle driven before the necessary repairs are affected any extension of the damages or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk.”

In the light of the above, it is very clear that the vehicle got stolen due to gross negligence on your driver’s part. We regret, therefore, that we are unable to entertain this claim.

The foregoing declination of insurer’s liability is issued based on the facts as presently known. We reserve the right to extend or modify this declination, should additional facts or circumstances become known to us.

Should you believe that we have overlooked any material fact or circumstance, or should you wish to present an alternative interpretation of any relevant policy provision, please draw the same to our attention for our further consideration within fifteen days of receipt of this letter. If you need any further clarification and or assistance, please do not hesitate to contract us.

4. Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim, the complainant/respondent approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint.

5. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner company primarily on the ground on which the complaint had been repudiated.

6. The District Forum, vide its order dated 22.11.2016, directed the petitioner company to pay the claim at a non-standard basis by making payment of Rs.8,62,500/- to the complainant alongwith the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.6,000/-.

7. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, both the parties approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate appeals. Vide impugned order dated 20.02.2018, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant while allowing the appeal filed by the respondents and directed the appellant/petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.11,














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top