Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/85

Shri Deep Aman Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Yogesh K Gandhi Adv.

09 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 85 dated 06.03.2020.                                                Date of decision: 09.08.2022.

 

Shri Deep Aman Singh son of Shri Gurdeep Singh, office at 132-B, Model Town Extension, Near Lal Kothi, Ludhiana (Punjab).                                                                                                                      ..…Complainant

•  

1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office at Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Regional Manager.
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., First Mall Complex, Sutheri Road, Hoshiarpur (Punjab)-146001 through its Branch Manager.                                                                                                 …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Yogesh K. Gandhi, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. R.K. Chand, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is the registered owner of Honda City car bearing registration No.PB10-FP-2200. The said car was insured by OP2 vide policy 1105003117P114095871 valid from 30.12.2017 and 29.12.2018 with an ID value of Rs.7,30,000/-. The car was stolen by some unknown person on 10.10.2018 when it was parked and locked outside in front of the house of the complainant situated at Baba Nand Singh Nagar, Backside BCM School, Basant Avenue, Dugri, Ludhiana. A case was got registered with the police of Police Post Basant Avenue, P.S. Sadar vide FIR No.230 dated 11.10.2018, U/s.379 IPC. The registration certificate and original insurance was lying in the car itself. The car was locked at the time of theft. Intimation regarding the theft of the car was also sent to the OPs telephonically on the same date and a claim was registered in the records of the OPs on 11.10.2018. The complainant completed all the formalities as required by the investigator appointed by the OPs and also supplied all the requisite documents including copy of FIR, certified copy of untrace report, report of NCRB, key of the car etc but despite that the OPs failed to reimburse the claim. The car was got financed and hypothecated with Punjab & Sind Bank for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. The complainant continued to pay the installments to the bank despite the theft of the car. However, the OPs repudiated the claim vide letter dated 21.01.2019  on the ground that the second key of the car was left in the dash board when it was stolen. In fact, the said key of the car was damaged and was not working properly and the complainant intended to hand over the same to M/s. Lally Motors, the authorized dealer of Honda City for replacement. The repudiation of the claim on the ground of negligence on the part of the complainant is illegal and arbitrary and also amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to pay the claim of Rs.7,30,000/- along with interest @12% per annum along with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.33,000/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that on receipt of the claim regarding theft of the car, the same was registered and processed. Mr. Amrik Singh, Investigator was appointed for investigation into the matter. After the thorough investigation, the investigator submitted his report dated 09.01.2019 and another report dated 22.07.2019 along with documents. After the receipt of the investigation report, the claim file was scrutinized and it was found that the complainant left the second ignition key of the car in the dash board of the car itself. This act on the part of the complainant amounted to gross negligence. Thus, the complainant failed to take all reasonable care to safeguard the vehicle from loss and this constitutes violation of condition No.4 of the policy terms and condition. As a result, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 01.10.2019. Thus, there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement reiterating the allegations made in the complaint and controverting those made in the written statement.

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex. CA and also submitted his another affidavit Ex. CB along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C24 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A of Sh. Ashok Paul, Sr. D.M. of the OPs and affidavit Ex. RW2/A of Sh. Amrik Singh, Investigator along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R36 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have gone through the record and heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties.

7.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has argued that the claim has been wrongly repudiated by the OPs and the repudiation of the claim cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The counsel for the complainant has further contended that as a matter of fact, the second key of the car which was lying in the dash board was not in working order and the complainant had kept the same in the dash board of the car as he intended to get it replaced from the dealer i.e. M/s. Lally Motors, an authorized service station of Honda City company. The counsel for the complainant has further contended that otherwise the car was locked and the second key of the car was with the complainant himself. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a negligent act on the part of the complainant. In support of his arguments, the counsel for the complainant has relied upon 2019 ACJ 237 in Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. and another Vs C. Anil Kumar whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam that if the driver parked the truck and left the key along with ownership documents of the vehicle in glovebox and took the key of the glovebox with him it cannot be stated that he violated condition No.5 of the policy as reasonable care was taken by the driver by keeping the key protected in glovebox compartment and the key of the vehicle was not left unattended.

8.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs has argued that the claim has been rightly repudiated as it is a case of utter and gross negligence on the part of the complainant in as much as he left the second key of the car in the dash board of the car itself and, therefore, the claim has been rightly repudiated. In support of his argument, the counsel for the OPs relied upon 2017(2) CLT 533 in Bachhu Singh Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that leaving the key of the vehicle in the ignition unattended is nothing but an open invitation to commit theft of the vehicle and the repudiation of the claim in the light of these facts was also held to be justified. The counsel for the OPs has further relied upon 2017 (1) C.P.R. 117 M/s. Mahavir Prasad Gupta and sons Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that if the keys of the vehicle were left in the ignition socket at the time of incident and theft was facilitated due to negligence of complainant, it justified the repudiation of the claim.

9.                We have weighed the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

10.              Primarily, in this case, the claim has been repudiated on the ground that the complainant violated the condition No.4 of the policy in as much as the complainant failed to take reasonable care in safeguarding the vehicle. In this regard, the plea raised by the OPs is that the complainant left the second key of the car in the dash board itself. In this regard, a reference can be made to the FIR Ex. C4 which was recorded on the statement of the complainant himself whereby he stated that on 10.10.2018 he parked his car in a vacant plot in front of his house situated at Baba Nand Singh Nagar, Basant Avenue, Dugri, Ludhiana. When he came out at about 09.00 PM, he saw that his car was not there and had been stolen. It is further motioned in FIR Ex. C4 that the key of his office along with registration certificate of the car and second key of the car were also in the car which was stolen by some unknown persons. In the statement Ex. C9, the complainant has further mentioned that when the car was parked outside his house, it was locked. An investigator also appointed by the OPs who submitted his report Ex. R21. In the investigation report Ex. R21, it is mentioned that the car was stolen by some unknown person on 10.10.2018 in between 08.30 to 09.00 PM. It is further stated in the report that intimation of theft was given to the police on the same day and FIR No.230 dated 11.10.2018 was registered by the police under Section 379 IPC. It is further stated in the investigation report that as per the FIR and statement of the complainant, he had parked his car in front of his house in a vacant plot and the second key of the car as well as key of his office and registration certificate, insurance of the car were left in the stolen car itself and, therefore, the complainant had not taken due precaution in preventing the loss which constitutes violation of terms and conditions of the policy.

11.              After a thoughtful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered view that the car was locked when it was stolen. The only negligence attributed to the complainant is that he left the second key of the car in the car itself. However, if the car was locked by the complainant, it cannot be said to be an act of negligence on the part of the complainant even if he had left the second key of the car in the car itself. In this regard, a reference can also be made to law laid down in Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. and another Vs C. Anil Kumar (Supra) whereby it has been has been in  more or less similar situation held that if the driver of the truck had kept the ignition key of the truck in the glovebox of the truck and had also locked the glovebox, it was not a negligent act on the part of the driver of the truck as the keys were not left in the ignition or otherwise unattended in the vehicle.  Similarly, in the instant case also, the car was locked though the other key of the car was left in the car itself.

12.              So far as the case law relied upon in Bachhu Singh Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra) relied upon by the counsel for the OPs are concerned, the same cannot be applied to the facts of the present case considering the fact that in both cited cases, the driver of the stolen vehicle had left the keys in the ignition of the vehicle itself whereas it is not so in this case.

13.              During the course of arguments, the counsel for the OPs has further pointed out that the complainant has tried to make out a case that he left the second key of the car in the car itself as the second key was not working properly and he intended to get it replaced from the authorized dealer. The counsel for the OPs has further argued that as per the second report of the investigator, the complainant never approached the authorized dealer M/s. Lally Motors for the replacement of the key. Even these contentions raised on behalf of the counsel for the OPs are not tenable considering the fact that when the car itself was locked when it was stolen, mere leaving the second key of the car in its dash board cannot be said to be an act of negligence. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim on this ground vide repudiation letter Ex. R1 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is herby set aside.

14.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to OPs to consider and reimburse the claim regarding theft of the car bearing registration No.PB-10-FP-2200 taking into consideration the ID value of the car strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The OPs are further made to pay composite costs and compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant within period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

15.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:09.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Shri Deep Aman Singh Vs United India Insurance Co.             CC/20/85   

Present:       Sh. Yogesh K. Gandhi, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. R.K. Chand, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with direction to OPs to consider and reimburse the claim regarding theft of the car bearing registration No.PB-10-FP-2200 taking into consideration the ID value of the car strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The OPs are further made to pay composite costs and compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant within period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:09.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.