Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
BACHHU SINGH - Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Respondent
First Appeal No. 36 of 2017
Decided on : 27-04-2017
Mr. S.N. Bohra, Advocate, for the Appellant; None, for the Respondent
Leaving the vehicle unattended with the key in the ignition and the cabin open constitutes a failure to safeguard the vehicle, relieving the insurer of its obligations.
Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - - [RP No.1893 of 2016 & RP No.3198 of 2016 Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ashish Kumar Walecha and Ashish Kumar Walecha v. Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Vinod Kumar, Arjun Lal Jat v. HDFC Irgo General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.] - The court discussed the breach of insurance policy conditions related to safeguarding the vehicle from loss or damage, leaving the key in the ignition, and leaving the vehicle unlocked, which relieved the insurer of its obligations to reimburse the insured. The court cited previous cases to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's insured truck was stolen after the driver left it unattended with the cabin open and the key in the ignition. The insurer rejected the claim due to the failure to safeguard the vehicle and delay in reporting the theft.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insured failed to take adequate steps to safeguard the vehicle, thereby relieving the insurer of its obligations. The court cited previous cases with similar circumstances to support its finding.
Issues: The issues involved the breach of insurance policy conditions related to safeguarding the vehicle and the insurer's obligation to reimburse the insured.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that leaving the vehicle unattended with the key in the ignition and the cabin open constituted a failure to safeguard the vehicle, relieving the insurer of its obligations.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.
ORDER
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member.(Oral)—The complainant/appellant owned a truck bearing no. RJ-05GA-9383 which he got insured with the respondent company for the period from 05.11.2012 to 04.11.2013. On the intervening night of 18th /19th February, 2013, at about 1 am - 2 am, the driver of the vehicle allegedly parked the vehicle on one side of the road and went to check another vehicle of the complainant/appellant at another site. The cabin of the vehicle was left open by him. The key of the vehicle was also left by him in the ignition. The case of the complainant/appellant is that when the driver returned to the place where the vehicle had been parked by him, it was found stolen. The matter was reported to the police and an FIR was also registered. Intimation of the theft in writing was given to the insurer on 07.03.2013 after delay of about 17 days. The claim lodged by the complainant/appellant was rejected by the insurer on the grounds that (i) the insurer had not taken adequate care to safeguard the vehicle against the loss since the key was left inside the ignition and the cabin of the vehicle was also left open and (ii) there was delay in intimating the theft of the vehicle.
2. Being aggrieved from the denial of the claim, the complainant/appellant approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint.
3. The complaint was resisted by the insurer primarily on the grounds on which the claim had been rejected.
4. The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 29.11.2016, dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of his complaint, the complainant/appellant is before this Commission by way of this appeal.
5. A perusal of the statement of the complainant recorded by the surveyor on 08.06.2013 clearly shows that the vehicle was left open and the key was left in the ignition when the driver allegedly left the place where he had parked the vehicle. If a vehicle is left on the side of the road at midnight, the cabin is left open and keys are left in the ignition, this is nothing but an open invitation to commit theft of the vehicle. If the vehicle is left unattended in the aforesaid condition, it can hardly be disputed that the insured had failed to take adequate steps to safeguard the insured property against its loss. The insured, by not taking adequate safeguards to protect the insured property against a possible loss, contravened a mandatory term of the insurance policy taken by him, thereby relieving the insurer of all its obligations to reimburse him in terms of the insurance policy.
6. A similar issue recently came up for consideration of this Commission in RP No.1893 of 2016 & RP No.3198 of 2016 Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ashish Kumar Walecha and Ashish Kumar Walecha v. Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. decided on 20.04.2017. In Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), the complainant had left the key of the vehicle in the ignition while going to meet a friend residing nearby. When he returned after 30 minutes, the vehicle was found missing. The theft was later reported to the police and intimation of the theft was also given to the insurer. The claim was rejected by the insurer vide a repudiation letter dated 09.07.2012 which read as under:
"With reference to the claim documents submitted it has been observed that on 20.10.2011 as usual you have gone to your friend's residence and parked the vehicle opposite to his residence at Garba ground, Samata Colony. Leaving the key in the ignition itself you have gone to meet your friends. Upon returning after half an hour it was noticed that the vehicle was missing from the parked place. This has lead to your vehicle being stolen.
This constitutes breach of policy condition No.5 which is reproduced below for reference:
Condition No.5 -
The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from the loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and
