National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Kanwarjit Singh Kang vs M/S. Icici Lombard General Insurance ... on 15 September, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 214 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 28/11/2016 in Appeal No. 296/2014 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. KANWARJIT SINGH KANG S/O. LATE SH. BALJIT SINGH KANG, WARD NO. 11, GURU NANAK ROAD, TEHSIL SAMRALA, DISTRICT-LUDHIANA PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, ZENITH HOUSE, KESHARAO KHADYA MARG, MAHALAXMI MUMBAI-400354 MAHARAHSTRA 2. M/S. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY KHANNA, DISTRICT-LUDHIANA PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. ANUP K THAKUR,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Anuj Chauhan, Advocate Dated : 15 Sep 2017 ORDER This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission, Punjab dated 28.11.2016 in first appeal No.296/2014.
2. Briefly put, case of the complainant/petitioner is that he insured his Tata truck No.PB-23G-6681 with the opposite party insurance company. The insured declared value was Rs.10,22,000/. The insurance policy was effective w.e.f. 26.3.2009 to 25.3.2010. According to the complainant, Harjinder Singh driver of the truck while back to Ludhiana after delivery of consignment of potatoes, on 25.3.2010 at about 8.00 pm somewhere between Vardhman to Durgapur, parked the truck near Pepsi Gate of national highway No.2. After parking the truck the driver as well as cleaner of the truck went to attend to the natural call. When they came back they found that someone has taken away the insured truck. The police authorities were informed who detained the driver as well as cleaner under suspicion. On getting information of the theft, the petitioner reached at Bud-Bud police station, District Durgapur, West Bengal on 2.4.2010 and lodged the theft report which was registered as FIR No.27/2010 under Section 379 IPC dated 2.4.2011, PS Bud-Bud. The insurance company was also informed. Insurance claim was lodged. The insurance company, however, repudiated the insurance claim on two counts; firstly (a) that the driver of the vehicle has violated the terms & conditions of the insurance policy as he left the truck unattended, leaving the keys inside and secondly (b) that there was delay of 8 days in intimation of theft to the insurance company. Being aggrieved of the repudiation of the insurance claim, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint.
3. The opposite party on being served with the notice of the complaint filed a written statement justifying the repudiation of the claim. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence did not find merit in the complaint and dismissed the same. Being aggrieved the petitioner approached the State Commission in appeal. State Commission on re-appreciation of evidence concurred with the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. This has led to filing of the revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Fora below have failed to appreciate that the petitioner could not be faulted for delay in filing of the report of theft to the police because the theft took place with the jurisdiction of police station Bud-Bud, district Durgapur, West Bengal and it took time for the complainant to reach the place of theft from Ludhiana to lodge the theft report. It is submitted that so far as delay in intimation of theft to the insurance company is concerned, the Fora below have failed to appreciate that the petitioner had orally intimated the factum of theft of the truck to the agent of the insurance company. No other submission has been made.
5. We do not find merit in the above contention. Perusal of the order of the District Forum would show that District Forum has categorically recorded that as per the terms & conditions of the insurance policy, in case of theft, the insured was supposed to give immediate notice in writing to the insurance company. Admittedly, no intimation of theft in writing was given to the insurance company. Therefore, the concurrent findings of the Fora below to the effect that the petitioner has violated the aforesaid condition of the insurance contract cannot be faulted. Further, perusal of the record would show that the claim of the petitioner was also repudiated on the ground that the petitioner or his employees had failed to take reasonable care to protect the insured truck from any loss or damage. This conclusion was drawn on the basis of the fact that the driver and cleaner of the truck had left the truck unattended at roadside on national highway No.2, leaving the keys in the truck. Regarding this violation, no contention has been raised. Therefore, concurrent finding of the Fora below in this regard also cannot be faulted.
6. In view of the discussion above, the petitioner has failed to show any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order of the State Commission concurring with the finding of the District Forum, which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
7. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... ANUP K THAKUR MEMBER