IFFCO Tokio General vs Nutan Sharma

V.K. Jain, J

The complainant owned a Toyota Innova Car which she had got registered with the appellant company. On 31.12.2016, the vehicle was stolen from outside her residence by someone who removed the keys of the vehicle which at that time were lying in the guard cabin outside the house of the complainant. An FIR was registered with the concerned police station and the insurance co. was informed. A surveyor was appointed by the insurance co. to verify the claim. Based upon the report of the surveyor, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 6.9.2017 which to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-

"On perusal of investigation report and other documents on record, it has been observed that:-

The key of the vehicle was kept in the guard cabin outside insured's residence. Further, Insured's security guard had left the cabin unlocked ant unattended due to which the thief easily gained entry in the guard cabin and took away the key of the vehicle and buy using that key he succeeded to take away the said vehicle. The incident is recorded in the CCTV footage also.

It is a case of 'Gross Negligence' on the part of insured and his employee and is a violation of policy condition No.4 which reads as under

"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 insured or any part thereof of 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 the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured's own risk."

Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim, the complainant/respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint.

The complaint was resisted by the appellant primarily on the ground on which the claim had been repudiated.

The State Commission having allowed the complaint and having directed the appellant to pay the IDV of the vehicle to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. and Rs.25,000/- as compensation, the appellant is before this Commission.

The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the complainant had failed to take adequate steps to safeguard the vehicle against potential theft, she having kept the keys of the vehicle in a guard room, which was left unattended by the guard and taking undue advantage of the guard not being in the cabin, someone removed the keys from the guard room and fled away with the vehicle. This is also his submission that the guard room was like a public place since a water cooler was installed there and therefore the keys had been kept by the complainant in a public place.

I, however, find myself unable to accept the contention that the complainant had failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss/damage. It is difficult to accept that a person keeping the keys of the vehicle in a guard room which is supposed to be meant by a guard, could reasonably believe that someone could be daring enough to enter the guard room, remove the keys and take away the vehicle. It is not as if the guard was not at all deployed in the guard room. This is not the case of the insurer at all. The case of the insurer is that the guard had temporarily left the guard room, taking advantage of which, someone entered the guard room to take water from the water cooler installed therein and finding the keys of the vehicle inside the guard room, he took advantage of the absence of the guard and removed the keys of the vehicle from the guard room. It is quite possible that the guard had temporarily left the guard room may be in order to answer the call of the nature. He could not have suspected that someone would enter the guard room in his absence, remove the keys of the vehicle and run away with the vehicle.

Since a stranger entering the guard room will not know when the guard would return to the guard room, ordinarily he would not take the risk of removing the keys of the vehicle and then running away with the vehicle as the guard could return to the guard room at any time and he could be caught red-handed and handed over to the police. Therefore, in the normal course of human conduct, a person would not suspect that someone will enter the guard room taking advantage of the temporary absence of the guard, remove the keys from there and then commit theft of the vehicle parked outside the house but in the gaze of the guard deployed by the owner of the vehicle. The complainant in these circumstances cannot be said to have failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from any potential loss or damage. The repudiation of the claim was therefore, fully unjustified. The view taken by the State Commission, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.