National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Lakshmi Steel vs Tata General Insurance Co. Ltd. & 2 Ors. on 12 March, 2026
V
Date of pronouncement:- f%)QZ) 2 (t
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION NEW DELHI
FIRST APPEAL NO. 553 OF 2020
(Against the Order dated 06.07.2020 in CC No. 970/2018 of the State
Commission Punjab)
SHRI LAKSHMI STEEL
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, SHRI ABHAY JAIN
SHOP NO. 594,
NIRANKARI STREET-1
MILLAR GANJ,
OVERLOCK ROAD
LUDHIANA-141001,
PUNJAB.
EMAIL: [email protected] APPELLANT
Versus
1. TATA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
THROUGH ITS MANAGER
3RD FLOOR,
SHANTI TOWERS
SCO NO.37, .
PUDA COMPLEX
JALANDHAR,
PUNJAB.
EMAIL: [email protected]
2. TATA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
15TH FLOOR, TOWER-A,
PENINSULA BUSINESS PARK
GANPAT RAO KADAM MARG OF SENAPATI BAPAT MARG
LOWER PAREL,
FA/553/2020 Page 1 of 16
MUMBAI.
EMAIL: [email protected]
3. TATA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
THROUGH ITS MANAGER
301-308, 3RD FLOOR,
AGGARWAL PRESTIGE MALL
PLOT NO.2, ROAD NO.44,
NEAR M2K CINEMA
RANI BAGH, PITAMPURA,
NEW DELHI.
EMAIL: [email protected] RESPONDENTS
BEFORE:
HON'BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (RETD.), PRESIDING
MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER
Appearance at the time of arguments:-
For Appellants: Mr. Pratyus Sarangi, Advocate
For Respondent: Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocate (VC)
JUSTICE ANQOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER
ORDER
1. Appellant/Complainant assails Order dated 06.07.2020 passed by Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab Chandigarh whereby the complaint against repudiation of theft claim of car by the Insurance Company/OP (Respondent herein) vide letter dated 03.10.2018, was dismissed.
FA/553/2020 Page 2 of 16
Appellant and respondent herein are referred to as complainant and opposite party respectively, as appearing in the complaint, for sake of convenience.
2. In brief, Audi car (Model 2013) purchased by the complainant in the name of the proprietorship firm, was stolen during the subsistence of valid insurance policy on 13.09.2017, from near Angoori Bagh Bus Stand, Lower Subhash Marg, near Metro Gate No.4, Red Fort, Delhi. FIR No. 028642 dated 13.09.2017 was registered in PS Kotwali, North District, New Delhi at the instance of Indresh Jain (brother of Abhay Jain, Proprietor of Lakshmi Steel) who was in possession of the vehicle at the relevant time. Intimation of theft was also given to opposite party on the same day through their helpline No. 18002667780. Further, insurance claim was also lodged as per procedure. Police after investigation submitted an untraced report dated 04.10.2017 which was accepted by the Court of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi vide Order dated 24.10.2017.
3. Insurance Company/opposite party appointed 'Swan Investigations' to investigate the complaint, who submitted investigation report dated 03.03.2018. Investigator observed that Sh. Abhay Jain, Proprietor of the insured firm/complainant failed to produce the keys of the vehicle and it appeared that the insured is concealing some facts in FA/553/2020 Page 3 of 16 relation to the keys of the said vehicle or it might be possible that last user would have left the keys of the said vehicle in the ignition itself, due to which the vehicle got stolen. The insured as such is stated to have violated condition no. 4 of the insurance policy which provides that insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. It is further the case of Insurance Company that complainant failed to give reasons for late intimation to the Company by seven days. Complainant further failed to produce his brother Indresh Jain and mother Anuradha Jain before the Investigators. As such, the complainant is alleged to have violated condition no. 8 of the insurance policy which provides for due observation and fulfillment of the terms, conditions and endorsements of the policy, in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the insured. The claim was therefore repudiated by the Insurance Company / OP vide letter dated 03.10.2018.
4. Aggrieved against repudiation of claim by the Insurance Company I OP, complainant preferred complaint before the Ld. State Commission which stands dismissed vide impugned Order dated 06.07.2020 as noticed above.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant / appellant submits that since the mother of complainant was suffering from heart disease and was FA/553/2020 Page 4 of 16 undertaking treatment from Homeopathic Doctor at Faridabad, she along with her elder son ( Indresh Jain) had come to Delhi for regular check up. On 13.09.2017 since the Doctor was unavailable, Indresh Jain along with his mother went to Chandni Chowk market and parked the car alongside the road side near PS Red Fort at around 3.30 p.m.. However, on returning at 5.30 p.m. the car was found missing. The matter was reported to police on the same day and FIR No. 028642 dated 13.09.2017 was registered under Section 379 IRC. Thereafter Indresh Jain along with his mother returned back to Ludhiana, while appellant remained in touch with police authorities as well as agent of respondent / opposite party namely Gurjit Kaur Syal. A formal claim was lodged with OP on 20.09.2017 and necessary documents were provided to the opposite party / Insurance Company from time to time. Also a detailed reply was given in response to repudiation letter dated 03.10.2018. He submits that the Ld. State Commission fell in error in observing that there was breach of condition No. 4 and 8 of the policy merely on account of non-production of the keys of the car by the complainant. Further the necessary documents and key in possession of complainant was duly provided to the Insurance Company as soon as it was feasible. He emphasizes that non-production of key could not prejudice the recovery in any manner as the complaint had been lodged FA/553/2020 Page 5 of 16 with the police on the day of theft. Also the non-traceable report on investigation filed by the police does not indicate any negligence or connivance of the complainant. He also urges that the observations made in repudiation letter dated 03.10.2018 by OP with reference to parking of vehicle in no parking zone and non-availability of mobile history of two other numbers of the brother of complainant along with medical papers of his mother are not relevant, as the factum of theft of vehicle is not disputed or doubted by the investigating agency. He submits that the presumption drawn by the Ld. State Commission that the car had been stolen since the keys were left in the car is not a ground even in the repudiation letter dated 03.10.2018. Reliance is further placed on Khem Chand Sapra Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003 (2) C.P.C. 4;Sukhwinder Singh Vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., IV (2013) CPJ 218 (NC); Future Generali India Insurance Ltd. Vs. Anisha Chaudhary, 2016 (4) CPJ 138 (NC); and Patesaria Brothers Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Revision Petition No. 1070 of 2018) in support of the contentions.
6. On other hand, learned counsel for the respondent / Insurance Company supports the Order passed by the Ld. State Commission and submits that the car had been negligently parked by the brother of the FA/553/2020 Page 6 of 16 complainant outside the demarcated area for parking near Red Fort Police Station. He urged that the last user of the insured vehicle failed to produce himself for aiding investigation by the investigator appointed by the Insurance Company. Further, the complainant / appellant failed to produce the original keys of the insured vehicle after lodging of claim which is in breach of condition No. 4 and 8 of the policy. He emphasizes that the theft of the vehicle had taken place as the same was left unattended. Further non-production of the keys by the complainant reflects concealment of some facts by the complainant, or the user may have left the keys of the vehicle in the ignition itself which facilitated theft of vehicle. He also submits that it is easy to introduce e-FIR in Delhi without visiting the police station. Further the appellant is stated to have submitted a key after a long gap but on scanning of the key, it was found that the same was blank and did not contain coding / data. In support of his contentions reliance is placed on Export Credit Guarantee Corp, of India V Garg Sons International; (2013) (1) Scale 410. Reference is also made to judgements relied before the Ld. State Commission Ravneet Singh Bagga v. M/s. K.L.M. Royal Dutch Airlines (2000) 1 SCC 66, National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sri Srinivas Cotton Traders 2010 SCC OnLine NCDRC 94, Ull v. Marchand Rai Chandan Lal (2004), Iqbal Hussain Quazi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. FA/553/2020 Page 7 of 16 2001 SCC OnLine NCDRC 54, Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 5 SCC 599 , and General Assurance Society Ltd. v. Chandumull Jain AIR 1966 SC 1644.
7. We have given considered thought to the contentions raised and perused the record carefully. There is no dispute on the proposition of law that while interpreting documents relating to contract of insurance, the duty of court is to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties. It is not for the court to make new contract, however reasonable if the parties have not made it themselves. Reference may be made to Vikram Greentech India Ltd. & Ann Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 5 SCC 599 and General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandmull Jain AIR 1966 SC 1644. Also there is no dispute on the proposition of law that if it is found that the person or authority rendering service had taken all precautions and considered all relevant facts and circumstances in the course of the transaction and that their action is in good faith, it cannot be said that there had been any deficiency in service, as held in Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 66. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Marchand Rai Chandan Lal (2004) 8 SCC 644 Hon'ble Apex court reiterated that the terms of the policy shall govern the contract between the parties and they have to FA/553/2020 Page 8 of 16 abide by the definition given therein and all those expressions appearing in the policy have to be considered as it is and something cannot be . added or subtracted or substituted.
8. The judicial precedents relied by the Ld. counsel for the appellant / complainant as well as respondent / opposite party may be briefly noticed for reference.
(i) Khem Chand Sapra Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) relied by the complainant deals with repudiation of claim by the Insurance Company on the ground that the incident did not relate to theft of truck but involved Section 379/364 IRC (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder). The order passed by the Ld. State Commission dismissing the claim was set aside by National Commission holding that the case of theft clearly emerged from the facts and circumstances.;
(i>) In Sukhwinder Singh vs. Cholamandalam-MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), petitioner's claim was repudiated by the respondent / Insurance Company on the ground of violation of condition of policy which required the insured to take reasonable steps for protection of insured vehicle or any loss or damage. The driver therein had parked the vehicle at roadside and went to ease, forgetting to remove the keys from ignition. During the afore-said period the vehicle FA/553/2020 Page 9 of 16 was stolen. This Commission held that lapse on the part of the driver could not be treated as willful breach of condition. Further leaving of key in the ignition of the car on all occasions cannot be termed so serious breach so as to disentitle the insured from seeking claim under the insurance policy. Reliance was further placed upon Judgement passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Sagar Tour & Travels & Anr. MANU/PH/2985/2011 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kamal Singhal IV (2010) CPJ 297 (NC);
(iii) In Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anshita Chaudhary MANU/CF/0555/2016 claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle had not been taken by the insured, since it was claimed by the complainant that the second key of the vehicle was kept in a handbag kept in the car. The repudiation of the claim on afore-said count was not accepted by this Commission holding that the said act of leaving the second key in the bag inside the car did not in any manner contribute to theft of the vehicle which was otherwise locked.;
(iv) In Patesaria Brothers Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (supra) the truck parked by the driver on the roadside dhaba was stolen while the driver proceeded for refreshment FA/553/2020 Page 10 of 16 and went to attend the call of nature. The complainant subsequently managed to collect the duplicate key from the financier but the claim was repudiated on the ground that original key was left by the driver in the ignition hole which facilitated the theft of truck. This Commission in the absence of any material on record to evidence that the key was indeed left in the ignition as the driver was not traceable held that the findings of the fora below was based on assumptions. Further considering the fact that the complainant was able to recover the original key the Insurance Company was directed to settle the claim and pay the insured amount.
(v) In Iqbal Hussain Quazi Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2001 SCC OnLine NCDRC 54 the repudiation of claim by the Insurance Company was upheld holding that the act of parking the vehicle below the electricity distribution wires due to inexperience of the driver was not safe. Also the insured truck at the time of the accident was driven by the driver who was not in possession of a driving licence permitting him to drive a heavy motor vehicle but was only permissible for driving a light/medium motor vehicle.
9. In order to further appreciate the contentions raised by the Ld. counsel for Insurance Company/OP claiming violation of condition No. 4 and 8 of the policy, the same may be reproduced for reference:- FA/553/2020 Page 11 of 16
"Condition 4 The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from the loss or damage and to maintain in efficient condition and the, company shall have at all time free and full access to examine the vehicle or any other part thereof or any driver or employee of the Insured, In event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damages or loss and if the vehicle be driven before necessary repairs are affected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the Insured's own risk...
Condition 8 The due observance and fulfilment of the terms, conditions and endorsements of the policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the insured and the truth of the statements and answers in the said proposal shall be conditions precedent to any liability to the Company to make any payment under this Policy."
10. As per the case of the complainant, the vehicle was stolen after being parked near Angoori Bagh Bus Stand, Lower Subhash Marg near Metro Gate No.4, Red Fort, Delhi and FIR No.028642 was lodged on the same date. We are of considered opinion that merely because the law provides for registration of e-FIR, an adverse inference cannot be drawn regarding connivance of complainant in not approaching for registration of FIR in person. Nothing has been brought on record by the OP to show if in the closure report filed by the police, any finding is attributed regarding connivance of the complainant in wrongful disposal or theft of FA/553/2020 Page 12 of 16 car. Further it cannot be ignored that in the congested areas in Old Delhi, vehicle is, at times, parked outside the earmarked parking areas for short duration for convenience. On account of parking of the vehicle in a non-earmarked parking zone, it cannot be presumed that owner/possessor of the vehicle failed to take necessary steps to prevent the loss/theft of the vehicle. The fact that vehicle had been parked during daytime hours in a running market cannot be ignored as the possibility of theft is minimal.
11. The stand of the Insurance Company that complainant failed to produce his mother and brother for examination by the Investigator appointed by Insurance Company and as such did not cooperate in investigation also does not inspire much confidence as the Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company was always at liberty to approach the mother and brother of the complainant, if required, at their residence. Also, steps could have been taken by the Insurance Company for lodging a protest / complaint with the Investigating Agency at Delhi, in case they doubted that the vehicle had not been stolen and the claim had been falsely lodged at Delhi by the complainant. In the absence of any such steps being taken or adverse finding by the Investigating Agency against the complainant, we are unable to accept with the FA/553/2020 Page 13 of 16 observations of the Investigator appointed by OP that the theft had taken place under suspicious circumstances.
The term 'cooperate as used under the contract was considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. 6 (2020) 11 SCC 612, and it was observed that the term 'cooperate' as used under the contract needs to be assessed in the facts and circumstances of each case. Further, while assessing the 'duty to co-operate' by the insured, inter alia the Court should have regard to those breaches by the insured which are prejudicial to the Insurance Company. Usually, mere delay in informing the theft to the Insurer, when the same was already informed to the law enforcement authorities cannot amount to a breach of 'duty to co-operate' by the insured.
12. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has further urged that that non-production of the keys of the car clearly reflects the breach of condition no.4 and 8 by the complainant as complainant failed to take reasonable care for the safety of the vehicle and leaving of the keys in the ignition keyhole cannot be ruled out.
We may observe that nothing has been brought to the notice of this Commission with reference to any finding in the untraced report FA/553/2020 Page 14 of 16 regarding leaving of the key in the ignition of the vehicle. The same is based upon assumption in absence of any cogent evidence on record. The specific stand of the complainant in his evidence led on record is that the key was subsequently provided to the Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company which the Insurance Company claims to be without any data. However, no evidence has been led by Insurance Company of the concerned manufacturer/dealer to the effect that the key provided by complainant was duplicate or did not pertain to the stolen car. The non-production of the key in the facts and circumstances of the case does not amount to fundamental breach of contract. A similar contention raised on behalf of the insurer was rejected by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2024) 1 SCC 357, wherein the claim had been repudiated by the Insurance Company since the driver had left the key in the keyhole after parking the vehicle. The claim was allowed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on non-standard basis following Amalendu Sahu Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2010 4 SCC 536.
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the present case is fit whereby the claim ought to have been awarded on non-standard basis. We are unable to concur with the findings of the learned State Commission upholding the FA/553/2020 Page 15 of 16 5' repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company on the ground of alleged breach of condition no. 4 & 8 of the insurance policy. Order passed by the Ld. State Commission is accordingly set aside. Appeal is accordingly allowed thereby directing the Insurance Company to pay 75% of the assured amount on non-standard basis with interest @ 6% per annum from one month of filing of the report by the Investigator with the Insurance Company. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
( AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM, Retd.) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
( ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.) MEMBER ar/sd/B-4/reserved matter FA/553/2020 Page 16 of 16