Back
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FIRST APPEAL No.2337 /2012.
DECIDED ON : 19.7.2016.
Kailash Chand Dhakad.
….APPELLANT.
VERSUS
Cholamandalam M S General
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
….RESPONDENTS.
BEFORE:
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA, PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT. NEERJA SINGH, MEMBER
COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES :
SHRI A. R. TAUNK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.
SHRI RAVINDRA TIWARI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.
NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2.
O R D E R
The following order of the Commission was delivered by
Rakesh Saksena, J. :
Appellant / complainant has filed this appeal against the
order dated 20.11.2012 passed by District Forum, Shivpuri in CC No.390/2011
whereby the complaint filed by the appellant has been partly allowed.
2.
In short, facts of the case are that complainant was the
owner of Mahindra 575 Tractor having registration No. MP 33 / A / 4218 which
-
2 -
was insured by the respondent / opposite party no.1/ Inurance Company. The
policy was valid from 10.12.2009 to 9.12.2010. On 17.5.2010 complainant
parked his tractor inside the boundary of his house. During the night intervening
between 17 – 18th May, 2010 somebody stole his tractor by breaking open the
lock of the gate of the boundary. In the morning he searched for the same and
lodged first information report with police on 20.5.2010. He also gave intimation
of the theft to the Insurance Company on 19.5.2010. The Insurance Company
however repudiated his claim on 9.8.2011 on the ground that he failed to take
reasonable safeguards to prevent the loss of the vehicle as per terms and
conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant therefore approached to
District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of Insurance Company,
claiming the amount of IDV Rs.4,50,000/- with interest from 17.5.2010 along with
compensation for mental agony Rs.10000/- and financial loss Rs.50000/-.
3.
The opposite party / Insurance Company averred that the
complainant had left the keys of the vehicle in the tool box as such he failed to
take reasonable precaution and safeguard for safety of the vehicle. He also
reported the incident to police with delay therefore the Company committed no
deficiency in repudiating his claim of insurance. Learned District Forum in view
of the fact that complainant had left the keys of the vehicle in the tool box held
partial breach of the conditions of policy and allowed the complaint with
deduction of 30% of the amount from the IDV of the tractor. The Forum,
however, awarded Rs.1000/- for mental agony and Rs.700/- towards cost of
litigation. Aggrieved by the order of partial deduction by the District Forum,
complainant has preferred this appeal. No appeal has been preferred by the
opposite party / Insurance Company.
-
3 -
4.
Shri A. R. Taunk, learned counsel for the complainant
submitted that after appreciating the evidence on record learned Forum has
found that the tractor was kept inside the gate which was locked, but since the
complainant kept the keys in the tool box of the tractor, he was not entitled for
whole of the IDV. He submitted that since the vehicle was parked inside the
boundary wall the gate whereof was locked, learned Forum committed error in
imputing negligence on the part of complainant. In normal course in such
circumstances, it could not be apprehended or anticipated that vehicle could be
moved out of the premises. Keeping the vehicle in a locked premises would be
taking reasonable safeguard to prevent the loss of the vehicle as such it would
not amount to the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy.
5.
Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party /
Insurance Company submitted that keeping the keys of the tractor in its tool box
per se amounts to lack in taking minimum reasonable safeguards to prevent the
theft of the vehicle. Merely by
