Involving the driver in vehicle theft doesn't negate the insurance claim under comprehensive policy.

1. The present Forst Appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 31.8.2015 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra Circuit Bench, Nagpur (in short ˜State Commission') in the Complaint Case No. CC / 13/16.

2. Along with 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 / 9568/2015is 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 3.5.2011 to 2.5.2012. The Insurance Declared Value under the Policy was Rs. 21,66,000. On 28.6.2011, 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 29.6.2011, 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 30.6.2011 was registered at Desaiganj Police Station under S.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 5.11.2012, 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