State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bharti Axa General Insurance Company ... vs Mrs. Neeru Gupta Wife Of Shri Jay Kumar ... on 8 January, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.966 of 2013 Date of Institution: 30.12.2013 Date of Decision: 08.01.2014 Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, Bigjos Tower, A-8, Netaji Subhash Palace, New Delhi, Now at Mercantile House, 7th Floor, 15, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi, through its Authorised Manager-Akanksha Kapoor. (Opposite Party No.1) Appellant(Opposite Party No.1) Versus 1. Mrs. Neeru Gupta wife of Shri Jay Kumar Gupta, Resident of Fimo Sadan, H.No.11, Old Housing Board Colony, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani. (Complainant) 2. Bank of Baroda, Branch at Circular Road, Bhiwani, through its Branch Manager. (Opposite Party No.3) 3. SMC Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Office at Bank of Maharashtra, Green Square Market, Hisar through its Authorised Signatory. (Opposite Party No.2) Respondents CORAM: Honble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member. For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate O R D E R
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member (Oral):
Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) has come up in appeal against the order dated November 12, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (for short District Forum) whereby an amount of Rs.4,35,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repudiation till its realization and Rs.2,200/- as litigation expenses was awarded to Mrs. Neeru Gupta (hereinafter referred to as respondent No.1) on account of theft of her car bearing registration No.HR-16J/3232.
2. The respondent No.1 was owner of car No.HR-16J/3232, which was insured with the appellant vide Insurance Policy Annexure C-6 for Rs.4,35,000/- for the period 17.08.2011 to midnight 16.08.2012. The car was stolen on February 20th, 2012. The police and the appellant were immediately informed about the theft of the car. FIR No.77 (Annexure C-2) was registered on February 20th, 2012 in Police Station, Civil Lines Bhiwani.
The car could not be traced out. The respondent submitted the claim with the appellant but the same was repudiated vide letter Annexure C-3 on the ground that the key of the vehicle was left in the ignition by Jai Kumar Gupta-husband of respondent No.1, who was driving the car.
3. Arguments heard. File perused.
4. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant was that respondent No.1s husband had left the key in the ignition of the car, which led to the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and thus the appellant was justified in repudiating the claim on account of violation of the terms of the policy. In support of his contention learned counsel for the appellant has referred to statement of Neeru Gupta, purported to have been recorded by their Investigator. This statement of Neeru Gupta-respondent is of no help to the appellant for the reason firstly, that any statement recorded by the Investigator has no admissibility under any law and secondly that it is not a case where the owner left the key in the ignition and left the car unattended. The driver, who was husband of the complainant, was by the side of the car itself and was only trying to lock the door when within fraction of seconds, some unknown person had slipped away with the car. He was putting the lock to the door when incident occurred in front of house. He has not left the car un-attended and gone away. The car was within the controlling position of driver and thus it cannot be said to have violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The appellants are trying to adopt a very conservative approach of the word negligence just to deprive the claim. The case law cited as UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Versus MAYA, II(2008) CPJ 182 (NC); NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED versus T.V. SARATHI, II(2009) CPJ 169 (NC); DEVINDER KUMAR versus NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. II(2012) CPJ 357 (NC) and JAGDISH PARSHAD versus ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. II(2013) are not applicable as the facts of the instant case are not at par with the above cited judgments because in the cited cases, the driver had gone away leaving vehicle un-attended, which is not the case before us. Thus, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.
5. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed in limine.
6. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent No.1-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
Announced:
08.01.2014 (Urvashi Agnihotri) Member (B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President CL