National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shakuntla Devi vs Reliance General Insurance & 2 Ors. on 5 June, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2091 OF 2012 (Against the Order dated 01/08/2011 in Appeal No. 1853/2010 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. SHAKUNTLA DEVI W/o Suresh Kumar, R/o New Housing Board H.No-2220,Sector-1, Rohtak Haryana ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE & 2 ORS. 1st floor,GT ROad, Panipat Haryana 2. Relience General Insurence , SCo - 212-214 Sector-34A, Through its Regional General Manager Chandigarh Chandigarh 3. Relience General Insurence Co Ltd., SCO-400,401-402,IInd floor.Model Town, Rohtak Haryana ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : MR. RAKESH NAUTIYAL For the Respondent : MR. D. VARADARAJAN MR. D. VARADARAJAN MR. D. VARADARAJAN Dated : 05 Jun 2015 ORDER This revision petition is directed against the order of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, "State Commission") dated 1.8.2011 whereby State Commission accepted the appeal No.1853/2011 preferred by the respondent/insurance company, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the consumer complaint filed by the petitioner.
2. Undisputed facts of the present case are that the petitioner/complainant got his car insured with the respondent no.1/insurance company for a period of 13.6.2007 to 12.6.2008. On 13.10.2007, the petitioner left the car unattended with key in the ignition and it was stolen. The matter was reported to the Police as well as insurance company. The insurance claim of the petitioner was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that the petitioner has violated condition no.4 of the terms and condition of the insurance contract by leaving the key in the ignition and left the car unattended. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint.
3. The District Forum on consideration of the evidence and pleadings, allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- with 9% interest p.a. to the petitioner/complainant from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization of the amount. Besides, Rs.2,000/- was also awarded as litigation expenses.
4. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, respondent/ insurance company preferred an appeal in the State Commission. Vide impugned order, State Commission accepted the plea of the insurance company that there was a violation of condition no.4 of the insurance contract and allowed the appeal. As a consequence, order of the District Forum was set aside and the complaint was dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable as it is in utter disregard of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Amalendu Sahoo Vs.Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. (2010) 4 SCC 536". Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Commission in RP No.1881 of 2011 titled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kulveer Singh & Anr. Decided on 6.8.2012.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary has contended that the above noted judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case. This is a case of fundamental breach of condition of insurance contract. In support of his contention, learned counsel for respondent has relied upon the judgment of Bench no.6 of this Commission in RP No.3182 of 2014 titled "Arjun Lal Jat Vs. HDFC IRGO General Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr." decided on 28.8.2014. We have considered the rival contention and perused the record.
7. Admittedly, the insurance claim was repudiated on the ground of violation of condition no.4, which is reproduced as under :-
"The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from the loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the company shall have at all-time free and full access to examine the vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precaution being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured's own risk."
8. The above noted condition of the insurance contract requires the insured to take all reasonable steps to protect the insured vehicle from loss or damage. Undisputedly, the insured left the keys in the ignition of the unattended insured car. Thus, it is obvious that petitioner instead of taking steps to protect the insured car from loss or damage has facilitated the theft by leaving the keys in the ignition of unattended car. Thus, in our view, learned State Commission has rightly held that the repudiation of claim by the insurance company was justified and there is no deficiency in service. In our aforesaid view, we find support from the judgment of coordinate bench of this Commission in the matter of Arun Lal Jat Vs. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd (supra).
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Amalendu Sahoo (supra) has pleaded for settlement of the claim on non standard basis. We have gone through the judgment in the case of Amalendu Sahoo. It is of no avail to the petitioner for the reason that aforesaid judgment is based on its own peculiar facts. In that case, the insured vehicle was a personal vehicle but it was used for hire, which according to the insurance company was violative of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The aforesaid misuser which was subject matter of dispute in Amalendoo Sahoo's case has no causal link to the theft. However, in the instant case, the violation committed by the petitioner is grave because by leaving the keys in the ignition of the car, the petitioner has violated condition no.4 of the insurance contract. Similarly, the judgment of the coordinate Bench in the matter of Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kulveer Singh (supra) is not applicable because of its distinct facts.
10. In view of the discussion above, there is no material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the State Commission, which may call for interference by this Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... REKHA GUPTA MEMBER