ORAL ORDER
Per – Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. C. Chavan, President
Citation;2014(2) ALLMR(JOURNAL)43
This appeal is directed against the order dated 12/08/2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nasik in Consumer Complaint No.120 of 2011, Smt. Kusum Popat Kardile Vs. Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
[2] We heard Adv. Smt. Urmila Sanil on behalf of the Appellant/original Opponent – The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Insurance Company’ for the sake of brevity) and Adv. Ashutosh Marathe on behalf of the Respondent/original Complainant – Smt. Kusum Popat Kardile (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainant’ for the sake of brevity).
[3] A goods truck bearing RTO Registration No.MH-04-AL-5537 belonging to the Complainant was insured with the Insurance Company by a policy of insurance which was taken out on 19/03/2010. Said truck was stolen on 10/06/2010. According to the Complainant, she was entitled to claim from the Insurance Company an amount of `3,00,000/- for which the truck was insured. However, since that amount was not paid, the Complainant approached the District Forum.
[4] Insurance Company opposed the claim of the Complainant contending that the owner of the truck had not taken proper care in ensuring that the insured vehicle was properly guarded and that the keys of the insured vehicle were also kept inside the truck. It was also contended that it was not proper to park the insured vehicle on the service road. Therefore, the Insurance Company avoided its liability to indemnify the Complainant.
[5] After considering the material before it, the District Forum came to a conclusion that the Insurance Company had accepted the risk for an amount of `3,00,000/- in respect of the truck. Though the truck was about ten years old, since it was worth `10,00,000/-, its depreciated value was of `3,00,000/-. The District Forum also held that there was no breach of any terms & conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the Complainant and awarded an amount of `3,00,000/- to the Complainant together with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. with effect from 11/09/2010 besides an amount of `10,000/- by way of compensation towards mental harassment and costs of `1,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, Insurance Company is before us.
[6] Learned Advocate for the Appellant/Insurance Company relying upon Clause No.(05) of the insurance policy submitted that the Complainant should not have parked the insured vehicle unattended on the road and that there ought to have been at-least a cleaner to look after the insured vehicle. She also pointed out that the Complainant has admitted in the statement recorded in the handwriting of her son that the driver of the insured vehicle had as usual kept the keys of the insured vehicle inside the vehicle and locked the doors of the vehicle from outside and then handed over the keys of the truck to the Complainant’s son and then, left. She submitted that this was an open invitation to the thieves to steal the insured vehicle and, therefore, this amounts to negligence on the part of the Complainant and breach of Condition No.(05) of the insurance policy.
[7] Condition No.(05) of the insurance policy reads as follows:-
“The Insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle insured 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 insured or any part thereof any driver or employee of the Insured. In the event of any accident or breakdown, the vehicle insured shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle insured be driven before the necessary repairs are effected, any extension of damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the Insured’s own risk.”
[8] This condition does not stipulate that the Insured was expected to engage a watchman or a guard to look after the insured vehicle. May be ideally, the Complainant’s driver should not have kept the keys of the truck inside the truck but, it is not that he had not locked the doors of the truck and after locking the doors of the truck, he had handed over the keys of the doors of the truck to the owner’s son and this should have been a sufficient safeguard for preventing theft of the insured vehicle, for getting reimbursement from the Insurance Company upon theft of insured vehicle. Learned Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant vehemently denied the contention raised by the Learned Advocate for the Appellant/Insurance Company to the effect that the driver had kept the keys of the truck inside the truck. In any case, we do not find any perversity in the conclusion reached in the order passed by the District Forum that the Complainant had taken sufficient care of the insured vehicle and there was no breach of any terms & conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the Complainant.
[9] Learned Advocate for the Appellant/Insurance Company next submitted that the District Forum erred in awarding entire sum of `3,00,000/- to the Complainant towards the value of stolen truck and the District Forum ought to have taken into consideration the depreciated value of the truck. She submitted that as per Indian Motor Tariff, the depreciated value of the insured truck would have been less than `1,00,000/-. Here, it is pertinent to note that the Insurance Company accepted the risk by collecting the premium from the Complainant on the Declared Value of `3,00,000/- in respect of the said truck and when it comes to satisfying the liability, it raises all sorts of pleas like the one about the depreciated value, raised by the Learned Advocate for the Appellant. This is thoroughly impermissible. We see no error in the view taken by the Forum. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Pronounced and dictated on 08th October, 2013
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment