Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal No. 2407 of 2015

1- Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance

    Company Ltd., II Floor, Radhika Complex,

    Medical College Road, Shahpur, Gorakhpur.

2- Regional Manager, Reliance General Insurance

    Company Ltd., I Floor, Rohit House, opposite

    Saharaganj, Shahnajaf Road, Lucknow.

3- Competent Officer, Reliance General Insurance

    Company Ltd., Registered Office, Royal

    Industrial, Wadala, Mumbai.

4- Claim Manager, Reliance General Insurance

    Company Ltd., Plot no.60, Okhla Area Phase-3,

    New Delhi.                                               …Appellants.

Versus

Rajesh Kumar Singh s/o Ramnath Singh,

R/o 178 B, Sanik Kunj Nanda Nagar,

Post, Kooraghat, District Gorakhpur.             .…Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra  Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Mahendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate for appellants.

Sri Vimal Kumar, Advocate for respondent.

Date 10.5.2023

JUDGMENT

Per Sri Rajendra  Singh,  Member- This appeal has been filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order dated 19.10.2015 passed by the ld. District Forum, Gorakhpur  in complaint case no.127 of 2014.

In brief, the grounds of appeal are that, that the ld. District Forum failed to consider the case in the right perspective and also failed to appreciate the evidence and material available. The ld. District Forum failed to understand that the insurance company while considering the case of the complainant for settlement of the insurance claim and the complainant has failed to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss and damages. The ld. District Forum erroneously held that the appellant insurance company has repudiated the claim of the complainant on manipulated facts.

The ld. District Forum also failed to appreciate that the contents of FIR lodged by the father of the complainant, statement of the complainant himself and the statement of the driver on affidavit, all clearly reveals the fact that at the time of incident the driver of the complainant left the vehicle unattended by leaving the key in ignition while going for urination and in the meantime, the passengers sitting in the vehicle drove away the vehicle in question which clearly establishes the violation of the policy. The repudiation was absolutely just and proper. The loss of the complainant was caused due to her own negligence. The ld. District Forum allowed the complainant on mere surmises and conjectures. Hence, it is most humbly prayed that the appeal be allowed the impugned judgment and order be set  aside.

We have heard the counsel for the appellants Sri M.K. Mishra and counsel for the  respondent Sri Vimal Kumar. We have perused the pleadings and documents filed on behalf of the parties.

We have seen the impugned judgment and order of the ld. District Forum.

The driver gave the lift to 4 passengers in route and when he reached near PS Khorabar, he went to meet the nature’s call and in the mean time, the passengers drove away the vehicle. The surveyor reported that proper security and precaution has not been taken by the driver, therefore, the claim was repudiated.

The ld. District Forum has granted Rs.4,86,240.00 in favour of the complainant.

The 4 persons were given lift by the driver but there is no proof of taking any fare or rent from those passengers. The carelessness shows by the driver may lower the insurance claim as per the judgment  of National Insurance Co Ltd  Vs  Nitin  Khandelwal,  IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC).

So, in the above circumstances in the present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Nitin Khandelwal holds good. The respondent/complainant is entitled to get a claim of 75% of the value of sum assured. The  insured  amount  for  the  vehicle  is  Rs.4,74,240.00 and  on non  standard basis respondent  is  entitled  to  get  75 %  of  Rs.4,74,240.00, i.e. Rs.3,55,680.00. Rest part of the judgment of ld. District Forum needs no interference.

                             ORDER

The appeal is allowed partially. The judgment and order of the ld. District Forum is modified to the extent that the respondent  will  get  75 %  of the insured amount  Rs.4,74,240.00, i.e. Rs.3,55,680.00. Rest part of the judgment is confirmed.

If any amount is deposited by the appellants at the time of filing of this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, may be remitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission for satisfying the decree as per rules alongwith accrued interest upto date.

The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.     

          (Sushil Kumar)                         (Rajendra Singh)         

               Member                             Presiding Member

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

         (Sushil Kumar)                         (Rajendra Singh)          

               Member                             Presiding Member

Dated 10.5.2023

Jafri, PA I. 

Court  2