Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CONSUMER) 4
CONSUMER
MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
Sh. Vijay Gupta Prop. M/s Aggarwal Zari House, 2904, Kinari Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi – Appellant
Versus
M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd – Respondent
Consumer Complaint Case CC No. 243/2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr Anil Kumar Pruthi
For the Respondents: Mr S.M. Tripathi
The court emphasized that minor negligence in policy adherence does not justify total repudiation of an insurance claim.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 - Vehicle insurance claim - Complainant's vehicle was stolen - Insurer repudiated claim citing gross negligence for leaving ignition key in vehicle - Court ruled against total repudiation, directing payment of 75% of insured value with additional compensation for mental agony and costs - Insurer’s conduct deemed deficient in service. (Paras 30-32)
(B) Contractual obligation - Insurance contract demands adherence to policy conditions - Insurer cannot deny a claim completely without fundamental breach or fault of the insured. (Paras 13, 30).
Facts of the case:
Complainant's vehicle was insured and subsequently stolen, leading to claim repudiation by insurance company on grounds of negligence. Claimant argued against the insurer's allegations of gross negligence in keeping the key in vehicle.
Findings of Court:
Court held insurer's repudiation was not justified, awarding 75% of sum assured as settlement.
Issues: Whether the insurer was justified in repudiating the claim in totality based on alleged negligence in policy conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: Representative cases reflect that negligence must result in fundamental breach to deny claims; mere negligence does not warrant total repudiation.
Result: Complaint allowed; insurer to pay the agreed amount as directed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint details and context of theft. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. evidence and legal arguments by both parties. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. key judgment references and judicial reasoning. (Para 12 , 13 , 21) |
ORDER
1. By this judgment, I shall dispose of the complaint No. 243/2016 filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 with the following prayers:
1 To direct the respondent company/opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 22,09,275 along with interest @ 24% pa with effect from 1/2/2015 till its realization to the complainant being the insured value of the vehicle of the complainant.
2 To pass an order of compensation in regard with monetary loss, pain and agony of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the complainant.
3 To pass an award of Rs.55,000/- in favour of the complainant towards litigation charges and another expenses.
Any other relief or remedy which this Hon'ble Forum may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant got his vehicle Toyota Fortuner bearing registration no. DL-10CE-7741, insured with the opposite party vide Policy No.015504955700 for the period w.e.f.13.11.2014 to 12.11.2015 and paid the premium of Rs.54,120/- for the insured value of Rs.22,09,275/-. The insured vehicle was stolen on 01.02.2015, while the same was parked in front of the house of Complainant, at 261, Rajdhani Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi. The complainant intimated the police regarding theft of the vehicle and the FIR no.141/2015 was registered at Police station Saraswati Vihar Delhi. The complainant also intimated the opposite party regarding the theft of the vehicle. Later on, the complainant submitted non traceable report, issued by the concerned court and requested the opposite party to settle his claim.
3. It is the case of the complainant that vide letter dated 16.06.2015, his claim was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that he did not adhere to the terms and conditions no.4 of the policy and there was gross negligence on the part of the complainant, as the original ignition key of the vehicle was kept in the dashboard. It is the case of the complaint that he duly informed the opposite party that he was using the second key with which the insured vehicle was properly locked and with the key which was lying in the dashboard of the vehicle, vehicle could not be opened. It was also submitted by the complainant that to have access to the key, which was lying in the dashboard, either of the doors of the vehicle, or the glass had to be broken or a master key for opening the door of the vehicle would have to be used and without which the theft of the vehicle could not have taken place. Apart from the above, there was no other way the vehicle could have been stolen. It is the further case of the complainant that the claim was rejected by the opposite party on the assumption that the vehicle was stolen due to the access to the ignition key but there has been no negligence on the part of the complainant and the action of the opposite party in repudiating the claim of the complainant is totally illegal, arbitrary, malafide and is an attempt on part of the opposite party to absolve itself from the legal liabilities to pay the legal claim of the complainant and amounts to gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complaint had availed the services of the opposite party by paying hefty premium for insurance of his vehicle with the assurance that in case of any claim, during the period of insurance, the same would be borne by the opposite party.
4. It is the further case of the complainant that repudiation of his claim has caused immense mental pain, torture and agony to him, for which the opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to him. The action of the opposite party in repudiating his claim is against the norms of IRDA and amounts to utter deficiency in service on the par
