National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Batta Valji Laxman vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. ... on 14 January, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.4527 OF 2014 (From the order dated 17-10-2014 in Dispute No.320 of 2011 of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ahmedabad) WITH I.A.NO.9113 OF 2014 & I.A.NO.9114 OF 2014 (For stay, exemption from filing translated documents) Batta Valji Laxman Village Khengarpar Taluka, Bhuj Kutch Gujarat ..Petitioner Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Mumbai/Kutch through its Ahmedabad Office At Zodiac Square, Opp. Gurudwara S.G. Highway, Bodakdev Ahmedabad, Gujarat ..Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER For the petitioner : Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, Advocate 14-01-2015 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
1. The complainant/petitioner is the owner of the commercial vehicle, a dumper, bearing registration No.GJ-12-Z-2754 which he had got insured with the respondent-insurance company for the period from 24-06-2008 to 23-06-2009. The case of the complainant is that on 25-03-2009, the driver of the aforesaid vehicle, while going from Dahej to Bharauch, stopped the vehicle near Bhesvi village to take tea, parked the vehicle on the roadside and went to a nearby hotel to take tea. When he came back after about 15 minutes, the vehicle was found missing. A complaint was lodged with the concerned police station and later the insurance company was also informed. The claim lodged by the complainant/petitioner, however, was denied by the insurance company. Being aggrieved from denial of the claim the petitioner/complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.
2. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company inter alia on the grounds that the insured did not take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle since the driver had left the keys of the vehicle in the ignition when he went to a nearby hotel to take tea.
3. The District Forum vide its order dated 17-02-2011 directed the insurance company to pay 75% of the sum insured to the complainant along with Rs.3,000/- towards cost of litigation.
4. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the insurance company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The State Commission vide impugned order dated 17-10-2014 allowed the aforesaid appeal and dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner.
5. It is an admitted position that the FIR in respect of the alleged theft of the vehicle was lodged by the petitioner with the concerned police station on 28-03-2009 i.e. three days after the theft had taken place whereas the intimation to the insurance company was given on 02-04-2009 i.e. eight days after the theft. Under the terms of the insurance policy the petitioner was required to not only lodge FIR but also intimate the insurance company forthwith about the theft of the vehicle. By not doing so the petitioner/complainant contravened, an express term of the insurance policy which he had taken from the respondent.
6. The next question which arises for consideration in this revision petition is as to whether the petitioner/complainant has offered any plausible explanation for the delay in lodging FIR and giving intimation of the theft to the insurance company. On a perusal of the complaint I find that it contains absolutely no reason at all for the delay in lodging FIR and sending the intimation of the theft of the vehicle to the insurance company. Going by the translated copy of the complaint, it does not even give the date on which the FIR was lodged or the date on which the insurance company was intimated of the theft. It is, thus, obvious that the petitioner/complainant somehow wanted to conceal the delay in lodging the FIR and intimating the alleged theft of the vehicle to the insurance company.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in informing the insurance company took place on account of the theft having taken place at a distance of about 250 kilometers from the place where the office of the insurance company is situated. She also submits that the complainant took some time to collect the requisite documents so as to ensure that the claim was not rejected for want of the requisite documents. I am, however, not convinced from the explanation sought to be given by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even if the office of the insurance company was not situated at the same place, nothing prevented the complainant from sending intimation of theft by way of a registered post or speed post. There is no explanation for not adopting the said course of action. As regards the time alleged to have been taken in collecting the requisite documents, the explanation cannot be accepted for the simple reason that while intimating the theft of the vehicle to the insurance company, no documents were required to be submitted. The claim could have been submitted later after collecting the documents, but intimation of theft ought to have been given to the insurance company immediately after the theft came to the notice of the complainant. Moreover, there is no explanation for not lodging FIR with the concerned police station on the same day on which the vehicle was stolen. The purpose of insisting upon a prompt intimation of the theft to the vehicle is to give an opportunity to the insurer to carry out an independent investigation into the alleged theft of the vehicle. By not sending the prompt intimation of the theft to the insurance company the complainant/petitioner deprived the insurer of the said opportunity. In any case, the breach of the aforesaid term of the policy, in the absence of any plausible explanation for the delay in sending intimation to the insurance company, in my opinion entitles the insurance company to repudiate the claim. For this reason alone the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. Another reason why this revision petition cannot be allowed is that admittedly the driver of the vehicle left the keys of the vehicle in the ignition and went out to a hotel to take tea. According to the complainant/petitioner the driver returned after about 15 minutes. Thus, the vehicle was left unattended for about 15 minutes, with keys in the ignition. The driver was an agent of the insured thereby failed to take adequate safeguards for the safety of the vehicle. The theft took place solely due to the negligence on his part. This was yet another ground on which the insurance company was entitled to repudiate the claim and in fact this is the only ground taken in the reply for repudiating the claim.
9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
....
(V.K. JAIN, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER rk.10