Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. and Anr. – Appellants
versus
Tirath Singh Awatarsingh Bhatia – Respondent
First Appeal No.1034 of 2015
Decided on 1.7.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.51] – Appeal against order of State Commission - Services – Insurance – Theft of vehicle – Breach of trust – Driver involved in theft - involvement of driver in the theft will not rule out the commission of theft - Commercial Package Insurance Policy - Repudiation of Claim - Appellant has not filed complete copy of the Insurance Policy. Only cover note has been filed. It is, however, clear from the impugned order that the Policy covered loss/damage to the vehicle by burglary, house breaking or by malicious act. During investigation, it was found that the driver of the vehicle was involved in the theft - It is admitted that the vehicle was stolen and during police investigation it was found that the driver of the vehicle was also involved in the theft. The Opposite Party repudiated the claim stating that it was not a case of theft but breach of trust, which was outside the purview of the Insurance Policy. The Insurance Policy covered the loss to the vehicle by burglary, house breaking or by malicious act. It is a case of theft and involvement of driver in the theft will not rule out the commission of theft -Thus, The Appeal is dismissed. [Paras 13 to 16].
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
The present First Appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 31.08.2015 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra Circuit Bench, Nagpur (in short ‘State Commission’) in the Complaint Case No.CC/13/16.
2. Alongwith the First Appeal, IA/9568/2015, an application for condonation of delay of 61 days has also been filed by the Appellant. For the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice, IA/9568/2015 is allowed and delay condoned.
3. The case of the Complainant/ Respondent is that he insured his vehicle, Ashok Leyland Truck, Registration No. MH 35 K 3400, under Commercial Package Insurance Policy No. 16030231110100000212, with the Appellant/Opposite Parties from 03.05.2011 to 02.05.2012. The Insurance Declared Value under the Policy was Rs.21,66,000/-. On 28.06.2011, the driver of the Complainant Junaid Iddrish Seikh was handed over the vehicle to despatch Manure/Fertilizer from Gondia to Mashal. The driver after reaching Mashal at around 7:30 P.M, unloaded the manure and came back to Desaiganj and parked the vehicle at M/s Saibaba Roadlines, Brahmapuri Road, Gadchiroli. On 29.06.2011, when the driver woke up in the morning, could not find the vehicle where it was parked. He informed about the same to the Complainant. The Complainant then reached M/s Saibaba Roadlines and searched for the vehicle but could not find it and immediately reported the incident to the Police Authorities at Desaiganj, Gadchiroli as well as the Opposite Party. FIR No.37/11 on 30.06.2011 was registered at Desaiganj Police Station under section 379 IPC. Around two and half months later, the Opposite Party deputed an investigator, Mr. Shrikant R Siwankar, to investigate into the matter. The Complainant handed over all necessary documents to the Surveyor for scrutiny and settlement of his claim. In the meantime, the Police Authorities arrested and interrogated one of the accused in the theft, who confessed that the driver of the Complainant was also involved in the theft of vehicle. The Opposite Party, vide letter dated 05.11.2012, repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the ground that since the driver/employee of the Complainant was involved in the theft, the claim was outside the purview of the Insurance Policy due to breach of trust. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission with the following prayer:—
“(i) pay the amount of IDV of the vehicle Rs.21,66,000/- withheld along with interest @ 18% from the date of theft till full and final realization of the amount.
(ii) pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental and physical harassment and Deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice caused by the O.P.’s for inducing inordinate delay and not settling the matter as per the regulation of the IRDA.
(iii) pay cost not less than Rs.25,000/-
(iv) grant any other relief as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper.”
4. The Complaint was resisted by Opposite Party by filing the Written Statement in which it was contended that Opposite Party regularly issued Insurance Policy and the Complainant had a transport business in the name and style of ‘Guru Nanak Road Lines’. Due to regular purchase of Policy, the Complainant was well aware of the terms and conditions as well as the exclusion clause under the Commercial Package Policy. The driver of the Complainant colluded with the culprits for his personal benefit and drove the vehicle to Hyderabad in breach of Policy condition, i.e., beyond the geographical boundary of the territory of Maharashtra State. In such circumstance, the Opposite Party was not liable to pay insurance claim for any loss accrued to the Complainant. The claim was rightly repudiated. It was also submitted that as per the Police Investigation Report, gear box of the Vehicle valued at Rs.95,000/- was recovered by the Police subsequently, which was not deducted from the claim by the C
Commission of Theft - The Insurance Policy covered the loss to the vehicle by burglary, house breaking or by malicious act. It is a case of theft and involvement of driver in the theft will not rule ....
Involving the driver in vehicle theft doesn't negate the insurance claim under comprehensive policy.
(1) The insurer is required to enquire from the claimant as to what was the reason or the delay in submission of the claim. The claim should be rejected only where the insurer finds that it was liabl....
1. Delay in filing FIR and insurance claim to be condoned if reasonable explanation given, especially in case of theft of vehicle.2. Mere delay cannot be a reason for not providing claim as per Apex....
(1) Insurable Interest during Transfer – The process of transferring insurance (submitting applications and fees) often spans several days. If an incident occurs while this process is in progress, th....
The Consumer Protection Act prioritizes consumer interests, allowing claims to proceed despite delays if satisfactorily explained, emphasizing pragmatic interpretation over hyper-technicality.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
