National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs Nitin Lamba on 31 August, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1480 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 17/12/2015 in Appeal No. 16/2015 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, D-160/2, BEHIND HONDA COURTESY OKHLA PHASE-I, NEW DELHI ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NITIN LAMBA S/O MR. BALBIR SINGH LAMBA, R/O HOUSE NO. 540, SECTOR-16 HISAR HARYANA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Navneet Kumar Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. R.K. Sachdev, Advocate
Dated : 31 Aug 2016 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
The complainant/respondent owned a truck bearing Registration No. HR-39B/0553 which he got insured with the petitioner company for the period from 15.9.2010 to 14.9.2011. The said truck was allegedly stolen in the night of 30.10.2010 when parked near a dhaba where the driver, namely, Jitender Kumar had gone to take dinner. The police allegedly did not register the FIR immediately on being informed. The intimation to the insurer was given to 27.12.2010. The FIR was eventually registered on 21.12.2010 pursuant to a direction given by the concerned Judicial Magistrate under section 156 (3) of the Code or Civil Procedure. The claims lodged by the complainant/respondent, however, was rejected vide repudiation letter which to the extent it is relevant reads as under:-
"Firstly you have intimated the loss to RGICL on 27.12.2010 whereas the alleged theft had taken place on 30.10.2010 thus depriving us of an immediate opportunity to check and investigate the circumstances of alleged theft immediately after its occurrence, more over FIR is also registered late which is a breach of Policy condition No. of the policy as given below"
Condition No.1. Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and / or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this Policy. In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.
Secondly there is a breach of "Limitation as to use" since the vehicle was plying without permit.
Thirdly user left the key in the vehicle resulting into theft breaching Condition No.5 stated below:
Condition No.5 The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to 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.
In view of the above, on account of breach of Condition No.1, 5 & Limitation as to use, we regret that it would not be possible for us to admit liability for this claim. The claim stands repudiated".
2. Being aggrieved from the rejection of the claim, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.
3. The complaint was resisted by the Insurance Co. primarily on the grounds on which the claim had been repudiated. The District Forum vide its order dated 17.7.2013 dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 17.12.2015, the State Commission set aside the dismissal of the complaint and directed the petitioner company to pay a sum of Rs.12 lakhs to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% p.a. Being aggrieved, the insurer is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
4. A perusal of the statement of the truck driver would show that at about 9.00 p.m., he reached a hotel, parked the truck near the said hotel and went inside to take his meals. His statement further shows that the doors of the driver cabin of the truck were not locked by him when he went inside the hotel to take his meals. He spent one hour in the hotel and when he returned to the spot where the truck had been parked, it was found stolen. The same was the statement made by the complainant Nitin Lamba. It is thus obvious that not only the doors of the driver cabin were left unlocked, even the keys of the trick were left in the ignition when the driver went to the hotel and spent one hour there, while taking his meals. As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, he was required to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. Therefore, if the driver of the truck wanted to go inside the hotel, to have his meals, he ought to have locked the vehicle and taken the keys with him, instead of leaving it in the ignition. This is not the case of the complainant that while taking food in the hotel, the driver of the truck was sitting at such a place that a vehicle parked on the road was within his sight. In fact had the vehicle been in the sight of the driver, he obviously would have raised an alarm on seeing someone driving away the vehicle taking advantage of the key having been left in the ignition. The very fact that no such alarm was raised by him clearly indicates that the vehicle was not visible to him at the time he was taking food inside the hotel. If the driver of the vehicle leaves the key in the ignition and also does not lock the door of the vehicle while going to a place from where the vehicle would not be visible to him, such an act in my opinion, amounts to a failure to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. The driver knew that if he left the key in the ignition and the door unlocked, anybody could commit theft of the vehicle taking advantage of his being away from the vehicle. Therefore, it would be difficult to dispute the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle.
5. The same view was taken by this Commission in Arjun Lal Jat Vs. HDFC Irgo General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Revision petition No.3182 of 2014, decided on 28.8.2014 and Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar, Revision petition No.157 of 2016, decided on 20.7.2016.
6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I hold that since the complainant committed the breach of Condition No.5 of the insurance policy by not taking all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage, the insurer stood relieved of all its obligation to reimburse him on account of theft of the vehicle and it was well within its right in repudiating the claim. The order passed by the State Commission, therefore, cannot be maintained and the same is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the complaint filed by the respondent is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER