National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shri Mayur Raj Singh on 1 October, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3558 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 27.07.2012 in Appeal No. 777/2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, M.P. Bhopal) WITH IA/1/2012 (STAY) National Insurance Company Ltd. Delhi Regional Office 4th Floor, Jeevan Bharti Building, Tower-II Connaught Circus New Delhi - 110 001 ........ Petitioner Versus Shri Mayur Raj Singh S/o Shiv Singh Sisaudiya R/o Village Bhadaura Tehsil & District Guna Madhya Pradesh .Respondent (s) BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan K. Pandey, Advocate Along with Mr. K.K. Bhat, Advocate Pronounced on 01.10.2012 O R D E R JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. The facts of this revision petition are as follows. Sh. Mayur Raj Singh, the complainant, got financed a dumper vehicle from M/s.Shriram Finance Co. Ltd., in September, 2007. The said vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd., the petitioner/opp.party, for the period from 25.08.2007 to 23.08.2009. 2. The complainant, Mayur Raj Singh, took the vehicle to Haryana from Madhya Pradesh, without the requisite permit, for commercial work. From there, he took his dumper vehicle to Jaipur, Rajasthan, to meet his relative, namely, Mr. Vishwesvar Singh, on 15.07.2008. On the same night, at about 11.00PM, the respondent/complainant negligently parked his dumper at an isolated place, which was 200kms away from the main road and near the building of the School, namely MM Queens school, which is not functional and the building of which is locked for the past two years. The complainant left his vehicle unattended in isolated place and went with his driver, in search of his said relative, at 11.00PM, in the area of Mansarovar District, Rajasthan. When the complainant came back, he found that his vehicle had been stolen from the alleged place. On 16.07.2008, the complainant informed the police, Mansarovar Police Station, which was only 3.00Kms away from the alleged place of incident. The Insurance Company received the intimation of this incident, on 24.07.2008. 3. The case of the petitioner/opposite party is that it had appointed one Shri Upendra Singh Bais, as an Investigator, in this matter. He gave his final report that the incidence of theft is genuine. The Truck was parked at an isolated place, Mr. Vishveshwar Singh had already shifted from that premises, around six months ago. There were regular defaults in the repayment of loan on the part of the respondent to the Financier. Consequently, his claim was repudiated. 4. Thereafter, the complainant filed the complaint wherein he claimed total amount of Rs.16,62,500/- and an additional amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental and physical harassment and Rs.1,000/- towards damages. 5. The District Forum allowed the complaint, however, the State Commission partly allowed the appeal filed by the insurance company, and directed the petitioner to pay 75% of the IDV value of the vehicle, i.e., Rs.12,46,875/-, being 75% of Rs.16,62,500/-, within one month, failing which the said amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, at length, on admission hearing. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the Investigator of the Insurance Company has tried to locate the house of Vishweshvar Singh, but he was not traceable. The story spun out by the petitioner is false. Secondly, he should not have parked the vehicle at a secluded place, at a distance of 200 kms, away from the main road. The driver left the vehicle unattended in isolation and as such, they are liable for the same. The petitioner did not have the permit to take the vehicle outside the borders of Madhya Pradesh. 7. The repudiation letter dated 17.03.2010 is reproduced as below:- It is being informed to you regarding the claim presented in respect of the loss through theft dated 15.07.2008 of the said vehicle that the said vehicle was left out by you at an isolated place without any security whereas, other place was also available there and any permit was not there in the vehicle on the date of the theft. In this way, you are not liable to get the claim due to not utilising the vehicle against the terms of the Insurance Policy. 8. The vehicle was stolen and there is no denial about the same. The insured is not debarred from parking the vehicle at an isolated place. Even if the complainant did not have permit to go to Rajasthan, this being a case of theft, should have been considered sympathetically. This is no case of the petitioner that the vehicle was left unattended. In the case reported as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal , 2008 CTJ 680 (SC) (CP), the Apex Court was pleased to hold :- In the case in hand, the vehicle has been snatched or stolen. In the case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not germane. The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on non-standard basis. The Insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft. 9. Under the circumstances, the order passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. There shall be no order as to costs. .
[ J. M. Malik, J] Presiding Member ...
[ Vinay Kumar ] Member dd/16