National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Tara Singh (Through Lrs.) on 28 September, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2795 OF 2008 (Against the Order dated 20/03/2003 in Appeal No. 1179/2003 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road New Delhi - 110 002 Delhi ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. TARA SINGH (THROUGH LRS.) Resident of VPO, Wadala Varan Amritsar Punjab 2. BALAJIT KAUR - 3. HARPAL SINGH - 4. KIRPAL SINGH - ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : MR. ABHISHEK KUMAR For the Respondent : Ms. Shveta Kapoor, Advocate
Dated : 28 Sep 2016 ORDER
This revision petition has been filed u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 20.03.2008, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in FA No. 1179/2003, "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Tara Singh", vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar in Consumer Case No. 1106/2002, filed by the deceased Tara Singh, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the deceased complainant Tara Singh obtained an Insurance Policy from the opposite party (OP) Insurance Company vide cover note No. 368933, issued on 06.06.2001, in respect of his tractor, having registration No. PB02AB 3458, covering all risks including theft, burglary etc. The tractor was financed by the OP-2 State Bank of India. It is stated in the consumer complaint that on 13.11.2001, Harpal Singh s/o Tara Singh complainant was returning from Amritsar on the said tractor, after having its service done, when he stopped the vehicle on road near Majitha bye-pass and went inside a juice bar for taking juice. However, when he came out after taking juice, he found that the tractor was missing. He reported the matter to the Police Station Sadar, where an FIR No. 630 was registered u/s 379 IPC. A claim was also lodged with the OP Insurance Company, which appointed an investigator to hold inquiry into the matter. The necessary documents were supplied to the said investigator. However, the OP Insurance Company repudiated the claim vide letter dated 13.09.2002, following which, the consumer complaint in question was filed, seeking directions to the OP to pay ₹3.98 lakhs towards loss suffered by the complainant alongwith interest @12% p.a. and also a compensation of ₹25,000/- on account of mental agony etc.
3. In reply to the complaint, the OP Insurance Company took the plea that the insured had failed to exercise reasonable care of the tractor, as the son of the complainant left the ignition key inside the socket, when he went to the juice bar. The fact was clear from the report of the investigator as well as from the statement made by the insured and his son Harpal Singh. The terms and conditions of the policy had, therefore, been violated by the insured and hence, the claim had rightly been repudiated by the Insurance Company.
4. The District Forum, after considering the averments made by the parties, concluded that the Insurance Company was not justified in repudiating the claim, as there was no malafide intention on the part of the insured. They allowed the claim and directed the Company to pay a sum of ₹3,98,000/- with interest @18% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim, i.e., 13.09.2002 till realisation. Being aggrieved against the said order, the OP Insurance Company challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, and the said appeal having been dismissed by that Commission vide impugned order, the Insurance Company is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.
5. It was stated by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner Insurance Company during arguments that the insured had violated the terms and conditions of the Policy, because they left the tractor unattended on the road and also, the ignition keys were left outside in the socket. The Ld. Counsel argued that the Insurance Company had duly supplied the Policy in question, alongwith terms and conditions to Tara Singh insured on 25.09.2002. In support of his version, he has drawn attention to an affidavit filed by Chaman Lal dispatch clerk of the Insurance Company, alongwith photocopies of the relevant pages of the dispatch register, as proof of the plea taken by the Insurance Company that the terms and conditions were duly supplied to the insured. Ld. Counsel stated that as per condition No. 5 of the Insurance Policy, it had been stated as follows:
"The Insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle insured form 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 insured or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured....."
6. The Ld. Counsel has further drawn attention to the report of Sh. A.N. Chopra, Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company, supported by an affidavit, in which he stated as follows:
"That in the light of statements given by Tara Singh and his son Harpal Singh, it is very clear that in fact, Harpal Singh s/o Tara Singh, who was driving the vehicle in question, left the starting key in the socket when he went to the juice bar. Similar statement was also made by Tara Singh"
7. The copies of the statements of Tara Singh insured and his son Harpal Singh, who was driving the vehicle at that time have been placed on record. The said Harpal Singh says clearly that he had gone inside a juice bar, opposite the Polytechnic College, Amritsar to take a glass of juice, but he forgot to take with him the ignition key, which was inadvertently left in the socket. The same facts have been stated in the affidavit of Tara Singh insured as well. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the incident had occurred on 13.11.2001, but FIR No. 16 was registered only on 26.11.2001, meaning thereby that there was a delay of 13 days in lodging the FIR. It was not correct on the part of the complainant to say that the FIR was lodged the same day.
8. The learned Counsel has drawn attention to an order passed by this Commission in "RP No. 3840/2011 decided on 02.04.2012 "Devinder Kumar vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.", in which, the driver had left the keys inside the cabin of the vehicle and the vehicle was stolen. The claim was not allowed in that case as well.
9. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.
10. The facts brought out in the report of the investigator appointed by the Insurance Company make it clear that the keys of the vehicle were left in the socket, when the son of the insured went inside the juice bar. It has been clearly admitted by the insured as well as his son in their statements that the keys were left in the vehicle itself. It is quite evident, therefore, that the insured did not take reasonable care of the vehicle and hence, he is guilty of violating the terms and conditions governing the Policy. The Insurance Company has been able to prove from the affidavit filed by the dispatch clerk that the Insurance Policy, alongwith the terms and conditions governing the same, were duly sent by them to the insured. The complainant has also not been able to explain why they took a period of 13 days in registering the FIR with the local police station. In fact, they have wrongly mentioned in their complaint that the FIR was registered on the same day with the local police.
11. A perusal of the impugned orders passed by the State Commission as well as the District Forum reveals that they have based their conclusion only on the fact that the theft did take place. The orders passed by the fora below are, however, perverse in the eyes of law, because the claim cannot be allowed, merely on the assumption that the factum of theft had been proved. It is a settled legal proposition that a contract of insurance is a contract of good-faith and the parties are required to abide by the terms and conditions, governing the said contract. It is evident that the insured failed to take reasonable care of the tractor and hence, is guilty of violating the said terms and conditions.
12. Based on the discussion above, this revision petition is allowed and the orders passed by the State Commission and District Forum are set aside. The consumer complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER