National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Jagdish Prasad Bakshi vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 26 May, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3045 OF 2013 (From order dated 22.05.2013 in First Appeal No. 1558/2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Circuit Bench No. 3, Jaipur) Jagdish Prasad Bakshi S/o Late Sh. Rati Ramk Bakshi R/o Village: Jurehara Tehsil: Kaman District: Bharatpur (Rajasthan) Petitioner Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 70, Panchwati, Raghu Marg, Alwar, Rajasthan Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Kr. Jain, Mr. Sachin Kumar Jain & Mr. B.P. Maitra, Advocates Pronounced on : 26th May, 2014 ORDER
JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. The claim of the petitioner, Jagdish Prasad Bakshi, for the theft of the truck was repudiated by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on two counts. Firstly, he had received the no claim bonus in premium. The State Commission came to the conclusion that this ground does not stand proved. No appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company in that respect.
2. The State Commission justified the repudiation on the ground that the petitioner was negligent in taking care of the truck. He left the key inside the truck. The driver stopped the truck at 3-00 A.M. in front of Vaishali Dhaba itself. The Dhaba is situated on the Highway itself. The driver could not find out the truck even after searching the same. On this ground, the appeal filed by the Oriental Insurance Company was allowed.
3. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He vehemently argued that the petitioner should be granted the compensation on non-standard basis. In support of his case he has cited few authorities. He has invited our attention towards the Amalendu Sahoo versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 536, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Sanju Dongre II(2012) CPJ 197 (NC), National Insurance Company Ltd. Verus Nitin Khandelwal IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Naryana Prasad Appaprasad Pathak II(2006) CPJ 144 (NC) and United India Insurance Company Ltd. versus Gian Singh II(2006) CPJ 83 (NC).
4. Counsel for the petitioner has also invited our attention towards the FIR.
In the F.I.R. it was stated that the vehicle was locked.
5. All these arguments have left no impression upon us. In case the truck was locked, its key was not produced either before the police or before the surveyor. The truck remained on the spot unlocked for half an hour. Surveyor of the Insurance Company has reported that when the driver left for taking tea, he left the key inside the truck. The complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands. It is quite possible that the driver may be working in cahoots with the thief as is indicated by the State Commission. It was the first and foremost duty of the driver to produce the key before the police. However, the needful was not done.
That is fatal. This clearly reveals negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the driver. This fact makes the case different from the authorities cited above. The same are not applicable in this case.
6. The Revision Petition is without merit and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.
...
(J. M. MALIK, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ...
(DR.S. M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER Jr/9