STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Appeal No.A/21/354 (Arising against the order dated 01/02/2021 passed by the Addl.D.F. Mumbai Suburban in RBT/CC/12/451)

HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co.Ltd.

(Former “L & T General Insurance Co.Ltd.”)

Through its Manager 1.M/s.L & T House, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai 400 001

2.Ground Floor, Raheja Titanum Western Express Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400 063

3.602, 6^th floor, Trade Centre Bandra-Kurla Complex ...... Appellants/org.OPs Bandra (E ), Mumbai 400 051 Versus Mr.Karan Singh Tholia S/o.Mr.Hariram Tholia

302, Aryan Paradise ………Respondents/org.complainant PL no.87, Sector 16 Roadpali, Kalamboli Navi Mumbai 410 206 BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member PRESENT: Advocate Devendranath S.Joshi for Appellants Advocate Rajani Sinha for the respondent FINAL ORDER (Dt.08/12/2025)

Per Hon’ble Justice S.P.Tavade – President

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Ld. Additional District Consumer Commission, Mumbai Suburban in the consumer complaint no.RBT/CC/12/451 dated 01/02/2021, the original opponent nos.1 to 3 have preferred this appeal. The parties to this appeal shall be herein after called and referred to as per their status in the original consumer complaint.

The facts giving rise to the present appeal can be summarized as under:-

2. It is contended that the complainant is resident of Navi Mumbai and he is doing the business of transportation of goods on hire basis. He purchased the Tata Truck with Triple Axle Trailer bearing registration no.MH-46-H-2951 for sum of Rs.17,39,927/-. He had taken a loan from M/s.L & T Finance Ltd. The said Truck was insured with the opponent for the period from 02/01/2012 to midnight of 01/01/2013. The truck was having Fitness Certificate and it was properly registered with the R.T.O. It was contended that the appellant used to pay monthly installment of Rs.46,775/- (in all total 45 monthly installments) to the Financer towards the loan. On 22/03/2012, the truck was loaded in Mumbai and it was proceeded towards the Noida, Delhi. The consigner’s name was M/s.Divya Kiran Transport Bombay and the Consignee’s name was M/s.India Steel Sumit Pvt.Ltd. The truck was driven by Mr.Mohanlal Kesunath and he was having valid and effective driving license.

3. On 24/03/2012, the truck reached Village Mandal. The driver of the truck locked the truck and parked the truck on the side of the road at village Mandal and took rest for a while.

4. On 25/03/2012, the driver came to the spot, where the truck was parked but to his surprise, the truck was missing. Therefore, he called the complainant, who asked the driver to lodge a report. Accordingly, the driver lodged the report with Mandal Police station on 28/03/2012. On the basis of the same, Crime Report no.59 dated 28/03/2012, FIR no.61/2012 was registered. The complainant informed the occurrence of theft of the truck to the opponent. He also requested for settlement of the claim. The complainant furnished all the documents to the opponent. The opponent appointed Surveyor Mr.Vikas Kumar, who obtained the papers from the Driver of the truck and it was contended that the Surveyor has written that the keys of the truck were inside the truck but it was locked. It was contended that the said statement was not made by the driver of the truck or complainant but in order to get the claim settled at the earliest, such statement was recorded by the Surveyor. It was contended that the truck was locked. The door of the truck was broken and it was stollen away by some unknown person. The opponent repudiated the claim on the ground that no proper care and caution was taken by the driver of the truck and there was breach of the terms and conditions of the policy.

Hence, the claim was repudiated. Therefore, the complaint came to be filed.

5. The notice of the complaint was issued to the opponent but the opponent failed to appear. Hence, the complaint was proceeded