National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Icici General Insurance Company vs Ramavtar (Now Deceased) Through Lrs. on 1 April, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 111 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 12/10/2012 in Appeal No. 879/2010 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. ICICI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY THROUGH MANAGER,SPACE NO-315, THIRD FLOOR, AGGARWALA CITY MALL, PITAM PURA NEW DELHI - 110034 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAMAVTAR (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. S/O SH.RAMESHWAR DAYAL R/O VILLAGE KAKRA BARDOD, TEHSIL BEHROAD, ALWAR RAJASTHAN 2. KAMALA DEVI - 3. VIJETA - 4. SURESH KUMAR - 5. PAWAN - ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : MS. MANJUSHA WADHWA For the Respondent : NEMO
Dated : 01 Apr 2015 ORDER
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.10.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench No.3, Jaipur (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 879/2010 - Ramawtar Vs. ICICI General Insurance Co. by which while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside and opposite party was directed to allow claim as per law.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant - Ramavtar got his truck RJ 32 GA 0673 insured from opposite party/petitioner for a period of one year from 27-02-2007 to 26-02-2008. On 04-10-2007 when truck was driven by complainant's son he stopped truck near village Kanakhedi at 4.30 A.M. and driver as well as conductor went for urinal. It was further alleged that 4-5 persons came in TATA Sumo and took away truck. Driver immediately intimated incident to the police on telephone and police reached on the spot and FIR was registered but truck could not be traced. Complainant also intimated to the opposite party and later on lodged claim which was repudiated on the ground of failure to take reasonable care and precaution. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that there was delay in lodging FIR and complainant's son and conductor both left vehicle abandoned at deserted place leaving the ignition key in the vehicle and in such circumstances, claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Complainant filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeal and complaint, against which this revision petition has been filed.
3. Counsel for respondent appeared and filed Vakalatnama but none appeared for the respondent even on 17.11.2014 and 26.03.2015, hence he was proceeded ex-parte.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as vehicle was left in jungle with ignition key in the vehicle, claim was rightly repudiated and learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint but learned Stated Commission committed error in allowing appeal, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.
6. Perusal of complaint and FIR reveals that truck was stolen on 04-10-2007 whereas FIR was lodged on 05-10-2007 at 10.30 A.M. i.e. after 30 hours and no explanation has been given for delayed information.
7. Perusal of complaint and FIR further reveals that complainant's son who was driving the vehicle at the time of alleged theft and conductor left the vehicle at 4.30 A.M. on road side along with ignition key and went for urinals. Later on, facts were improved and it was stated that on account of some noise in the rear wheel of the truck, driver stopped the vehicle and they were checking the vehicle. After removing the defect, they went for urinal on the back side and suddenly 5-7 persons came in TATA Sumo and took away the vehicle. In the complaint and FIR it has nowhere been mentioned that vehicle was stopped for removing noise coming from rear wheel of the truck. Learned State Commission has wrongly observed that on account of some noise in rear side of the truck, truck was stopped and after that driver and conductor went for urinal.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as complainant himself left the key in the vehicle and went for easing out, he violated Condition No. 5 of the policy, which runs as under:
Condition No. 5:"The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss of 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".
Perusal of aforesaid condition makes it clear that complainant's son was under an obligation to take key of the vehicle with him while going to ease out. When he himself had left the key in the vehicle, he violated Condition No. 5 of the policy and in such circumstances; OP has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim of the complainant.
9. In R.P. No. 3251 of 2013 - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shyam Sunder and R.P. No. 4521 of 2013 - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K.K. Valsalan complaint was dismissed by me on account of violation of aforesaid condition of the policy and observed that there was no deficiency in repudiating claim of the complainant. This Commission in another R.P. No. 1500 of 2009 - M/s Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nikhil Seth also dismissed complaint on account of leaving key in the vehicle and going for phone call.
10. In the light of aforesaid judgment it becomes clear that as complainant's son left vehicle with ignition key in vehicle unattended without proper precautions to prevent theft, petitioner has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim and learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint and learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal and in such circumstances, revision petition is to be allowed.
11. Consequently, revision petitioner filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 12-10-2012 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 879 of 2010 - Ramawtar Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. is set aside and order of District Forum dated 07-04-2010 passed in Complaint Case No. 874 of 2008 - Ramawtar Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. is affirmed with no order as to costs.
......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER