State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Iffco Tokio Gic vs Murlidhar Singh on 3 January, 2024
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 659 OF 2016 (Arising out of order dated 06.05.2016 passed in C.C.No.705/2011 by District Commission, Bhopal) IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANOTHER. ... APPELLANTS. Versus MURLIDHAR SINGH & ANOTHER. ... RESPONDENT. BEFORE: HON'BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI : ACTING PRESIDENT HON'BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : MEMBER
O R D E R 03.01.2024 Shri Nitin Jain, learned counsel for the appellants.
None for the respondent no.1.
Ms. Manisha Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
As per A. K. Tiwari :
This appeal at the instance of opposite party no.1-insurance company has been filed against the order dated 06.05.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short 'District Commission') in C.C.No. 705/2011 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.1 has been allowed.
2. Briefly stated the complainant had filed a complaint stating therein that he is owner of a Maruti Swift Car bearing registration number MP-04 CC-0632 and that the said car was insured with the opposite party no.1 insurance company for the period w.e.f. 11.01.2009 to 10.01.2010 for IDV of Rs.3,76,000/-. During the currency of the insurance cover, on -2- 07.05.2009 he went to his friend's house to attend house warming ceremony, the subject vehicle was stolen when it was parked in front of his friend's house at 61 A/S, Gopal Nagar Piplani, Bhopal. Immediately FIR was lodged with Police Station-Piplani on the very same day i.e. 07.05.2009 and the insurance company was also informed. The incident of accident was intimated to the opposite party and a claim for compensation of Rs.3,76,000/- was submitted before the insurance company along with requisite documents. The insurance company appointed Surveyor and Investigator in the matter. However, the claim was repudiated by the opposite party no.1-insurance company on the ground that at the time of incident the vehicle was left with key unattended and since there was violation of policy terms and conditions, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
3. The District Commission after considering the pleadings and evidence led by the parties vide impugned order allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party no.1-insurance company to pay IDV of the vehicle amounting to Rs.3,76,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 09.10.2011 till payment within a period of two months. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with costs of Rs.2,000/- is also directed to be paid to the complainant within two months. Hence this appeal by the insurance company.-3-
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1/appellant-insurance company argued that the District Commission has committed material irregularity and has failed to appreciate that the complainant himself has left the car in open space and also left the key inside the car, which clearly shows negligence on part of the complainant and the miscreants found opportunity of stealing the vehicle. He argued that since there was violation of policy terms and conditions, the insurance company cannot be held liable for any indemnification whatsoever made in this complaint. He placed reliance on the decision of this Commission in First Appeal No. 1792/2016 (Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Munni Bai) decided on 15.09.2023 in support of his contentions.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/respondent no.2-Surveyor & Loss Assessor argued that the opposite party no.3 has nothing to do with the matter as the Surveyors are independent authority appointed by the insurance companies under statutory provisions and they have to assess the loss with regard to incidents. She placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble National Commission in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sunil 2015 (3) CPR 353 (NC) and a decision of Rajasthan State Commission in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Netram & Ors. I (2014) CPJ 32 (Raj)
6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record.-4-
7. Having gone through the record, it is clear that there is ample evidence to the effect that the subject vehicle which was insured with the insurance company was stolen on 07.05.2009 of which FIR was lodged with the police station promply on 07.05.2009 itself. We find that the insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant left the key inside the vehicle and parked it unattended and therefore there is breach of policy condition. The complainant in his complaint or in his affidavit has nowhere stated that he left the key inside the vehicle. The insurance company on its own presumed that the complainant left the key inside the car.
8. Though it is pleaded that the surveyor and investigator appointed in the matter but no investigation report or surveryor's report has been filed before the District Commission. The insurance company has filed investigator report in appeal before us along with IA-1, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. We have gone through the investigation report, the investigator has nowhere stated that the complainant in his statement made to him or from any other source he came to know that the complainant left the key inside the car.
9. In these circumstances and keeping in view that there was no any such documentary proof that there was breach of policy condition we are of the considered view that the District Commission has rightly passed -5- the impugned order directing the insurance company to pay IDV of the subject vehicle.
10. So far as the decision of this Commission in Smt. Munni Bai (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the insurance company is concerned, in that case there was delay in lodging FIR on 01.04.2013 whereas theft took place between 25.03.2013 to 28.03.2013. In that case the driver parked the vehicle in unlocked condition for a long period of 4 days i.e. from 25.03.2013 to 28.0.2013 and he did know when the vehicle was stolen. The conductor's side door glass was also broken. But in the instant matter, in evening the complainant went to attend inauguration of his friend's house and parked the vehicle and when he returned at 9.30 pm he found the car was missing of which he lodged the FIR at 11.55 pm. Therefore, the judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable on facts and circumstances of the present case.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the District Commission. No case is made out to interfere in the impugned order.
12. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(A. K. Tiwari) (Dr.Srikant Pandey) Acting President Member