IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Non-Standard Settlement – In cases of theft where there is a contributory factor or breach of warranty (like limitation as to use) that is not fundamental to the loss, the claim should be settled on a non-standard basis (up to 75% of the admissible claim). When there is a breach of warranty or policy condition (including limitation as to use), but the claim is otherwise genuine (the theft is admitted), the claim should be settled on a non-standard basis
(2) Theft Claims vs. Policy Breaches – In cases of theft, a breach of policy conditions (such as using a private vehicle for commercial “hire and reward”) does not automatically result in total repudiation. The breach must be “fundamental” to the loss. Since the theft happened while the vehicle was parked, the commercial usage was not the cause of the theft
(3) Negligence regarding Parking – Parking outside is a common necessity due to lack of garage space and does not amount to a fundamental breach justifying claim denial.

JUDGMENT

AVM Jonnalagadda Rajendra, AVSM, VSM (Retd), Member.—The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) against the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (“the State Commission”) order dated 09.10.2017 in FA No.1251/2016 dismissing the Appeal filed by the OP/ Petitioner and affirmed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (“the District Forum”) order dated 20.10.2016 in C.C. No.362/2013.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the complainant, Rajiv (respondent herein), is the registered owner of tractor bearing registration No. HR-02Z-3842, which he had insured with IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd (“the Insurance Company”/ “the Opposite Party - OP”) vide Policy No. 78669789 for the period from 23.12.2011 to 22.12.2012, with the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.4,75,000. During the intervening night of 26/27.04.2012, the tractor was parked outside the house of the complainant’s driver, but in the morning of 27.04.2012 at about 7:00 A.M., it was found missing, having been stolen by unknown persons. FIR No.168 dated 27.04.2012 was promptly lodged at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar. The Insurance Company was also duly informed and supplied with all requisite documents. However, vide letter dated 04.03.2013, the Insurer repudiated the claim. Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the OP to honour the insurance claim, along with compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

4. The OP Insurer, in written version, raised preliminary objections regarding the complainant’s locus standi, territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum Yamuna Nagar, and maintainability of the complaint. While admitting issuance of the policy for the relevant period with IDV of Rs.4,75,000, the OP contended that upon receipt of intimation of theft, the claim was registered and Shri Sonu Bhola, Advocate, was appointed as Investigator. The Investigator’s report revealed violation of policy conditions, specifically that the tractor was being used for “hire and reward.” Relying on the said report, the OP repudiated the claim, terming it a “no claim” case on the ground of breach of policy terms. It was asserted that the complainant is not entitled to any relief, and dismissal of the complaint with costs was prayed for.

5. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 20.10.2016 partly allowed the complaint and relevant portion is as under:-

“Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.3,56,250/- i.e. 75% of the insured value of Rs.4,75,000/- on non-standard basis within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which the OP Insurance Company shall also be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization subject to submission of subrogation letter and indemnity bond and other necessary documents which are required to transfer the ownership of traction question in the name of OP Insurance Company. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.”

6. Being aggrieved by the District Forum order, the Petitioner/OP- Insurer filed Appeal No.1251/2016, and the State Commission vide order dated 09.10.2017 dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the order dated 20.10.2016 of the District Forum with the following observations:

“9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.

10. During the course of arguments, there was no controversy of any type that the complainant being the registered owner of the tractor