National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Sharwan Chhajer & 2 Ors. on 13 May, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1259 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 15/01/2016 in Appeal No. 1089/2015 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. REPRESENTED THROUGH DELHI OFFICE AT 2ND & 3RD FLOOR D-160/2, BEHIND HONDA COURTESY OKHLA PHASE I, NEW DELHI-110020 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SHARWAN CHHAJER & 2 ORS. S/O SH. ARUN KUMAR CHHAJER, R/O B-51, NOIDA GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR UTTAR PRADESH 2. M/S REGENT AUTOMOBILE PVT. LTD. D-12, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA BEHIND SILVERTONE MOTORS PHASE I, NEW DELHI-110020 3. M/S REGENT AUTOMOBILE PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR/PRINCIPAL OFFICERS 14/13, MATHURA ROAD, FARIDABAD HARYANA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Anup K Thakur, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ms. Bindu K. Nair, Advocate (proxy counsel) For the Respondent : SHARWAN CHHAJER & 2 ORS.
Dated : 13 May 2016 ORDER JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
The respondent / complainant owned a Chevrolet car Cruze car No. UP-16AC/1960, which he had got insured from the petitioner company for the period from 08.10.2010 to 07.10.2011. On 29.12.2010, the aforesaid car was entrusted by him to M/s. Regent Automobiles Private Ltd., opposite party No. 1 and 2 in the complaint, for servicing. The complainant was to take delivery of the vehicle after service on 03.1.2011. On 01.01.2011, the workshop informed the complainant that the said car had been stolen from his showroom and the matter had been reported to the police vide D.D. No.59-B dated 31.12.2010. The insurance company was also informed of the theft on the same date. When the complainant, who was out of station at that time, returned, an FIR was registered. The claim lodged by the complainant was repudiated by the insurer on the ground that the vehicle had been left unattended at the time it was stolen since ignition key was left in a drawer at the workshop, thereby committing breach of the terms and conditions of the policy.
2. The District Forum vide its order dated 14.10.2015 allowed the complainant against the insurer. Being aggrieved form the order passed by the District Forum, the insurer approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 15.1.2016, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the insurer. Being still dissatisfied, the insurance company is before us by way of this revision petition.
3. Condition No.'4' of the of the insurance policy taken by the complainant, which was the main ground of repudiation of the claim reads as under;
"Condition No.4 The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicles from loss or damage and maintain it in efficient condition and the Company shall have at all times 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 precautions 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".
4. In the present case, the complainant had entrusted the car to Regent Automobiles Private Ltd. for the purpose of servicing the same. He could not have anticipated whether the vehicle would be stolen from the said workshop. Therefore, it cannot be said that the insured had failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the insured vehicle form loss or damage.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the employees of the workshop were negligent in handling the vehicle since the key was left in the drawer of a counter at the workshop and it was accessible to outsiders from that counter. In our opinion, even the employees of the workshop cannot be said to be negligent in handling the vehicle since they could not have anticipated or apprehended that someone will come to the workshop, open the drawer of the counter, remove the key and then take away the vehicle. Therefore, the condition No.4 of the insurance policy as reproduced hereinabove, was clearly not attracted.
5. Clause No.2 of the 'General Exceptions' contained in the insurance policy on which the petitioner relies, reads as under:
"The company shall not be liable under this Policy in respect of
1........
2. any claim arising out of any contractual liability".
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner company is that since the vehicle was stolen while in the custody of the workshop it was the workshop which was liable to pay to the complainant for the loss of the vehicle since there was a contract of Bailment between him and the workshop. In support of her contention, she relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The Delhi Development Authority & Ors. AIR 1991 Delhi 298 and the decision of this Commission in Mahesh Enterprises Vs. Arun Kumar Gumber & Ors. 2001 CPJ 1 (NC) In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra), a truck which the plaintiff company had insured was stolen from the parking centre of DDA. The truck owner was reimbursed by the insurer which then filed a suit against the DDA and Union of India for recovery of the amount which it had paid to the insured. The vehicle had been parked at the parking centre of DDA against a proper receipt. It was held that the defendants were responsible for the safety of the truck which had been stolen from the aforesaid parking site. Reference in this regard was made to Section 148 of the Indian Contract Act. The aforesaid judgment however, is of no help to the petitioner company. Nothing prevents the petitioner form reimbursing the complainant and then claiming the said amount from the Regent Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., enforcing the alleged liability of the Bailee under the provision of Contract Act. But, it cannot be said that the claim lodged by the complainant arose out of the contractual liability between him and the workshop.
6. In Mahesh Enterprises (supra), the car of the complainant was parked by the complainant at IGI Airport and when it was stolen he had filed a complaint against the Airport Authority of India, seeking reimbursement for the loss suffered by him on account of theft of the vehicle. The aforesaid judgment has absolutely no application to the facts of this case.
7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. We however, made it clear that after reimbursing the complainant, it shall be open to the petitioner company to take such action, as may be open to it in law against the workshop from where the car of the complainant was stolen.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Forum Faridabad did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, since the theft took place at Delhi. However, since no failure of justice has occasioned thereby, we would not like to interfere with the impugned order, on the aforesaid ground, in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction.
9. The payment in terms of the order of the fora below, if already not made, shall be made within six weeks.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ......................J Anup K Thakur MEMBER