L & T GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs UMESH & ANR.

IA/9009/2016 (For condonation of delay)

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 12 days in filing the revision petition. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned and the application stands disposed of. RP/2732/2016

Issue notice. Copy of the paper book has been supplied.

The complainant/respondent purchased a Mahindra Tractor and got the same insured with the petitioner company for a sum of Rs.5,51,000/- for the period from 30.08.2011 to 29.08.2012. The complainant/purchased parked the aforesaid tractor in his plot, bolted the door of the gate of the plot from outside and left the said plot for the day. At that time, the key of the tractor was also left in the ignition. The tractor came to be stolen in the night and the theft was detected in the morning of 17.01.2012. There was also a delay of 8 months in intimating the theft of the tractor to the insurer. The claim came to be rejected vide letter dated 27.12.2012 which to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

Although the FIR registered in the case on 17.01.2012 but intimation to insurance company was done after 8 months. This is in violation to condition number 1 of the policy which says, "Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident and in the event of any claim. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process 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 accident which may give rise to a claim under this policy."

Also it was observed that tractor was parked with keys left alongwith the tractor in the ignition switch on the night of incident. This is gross negligence on your part and violation of general condition of the policy which says, "You shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard your vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and we shall have at all times free and full access to examine the your vehicle or any part thereof or any driver or employee. 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 or attempted to 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 yours own risk."

Being aggrieved from the rejection of the claim, the complainant/respondent approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.

The complaint was resisted by the petitioner primarily on the same grounds on which the claim had been repudiated. The District Forum vide its order dated 18.09.2015, allowed the complaint and directed the insurer to pay a sum of Rs.5,51,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal, having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.05.2016, the insurer is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

Clause 5 of the insurance policy 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 or any part thereof 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.

It would thus be seen that the complainant was under an obligation to take all the steps which a tractor owner would ordinarily take in order to safeguard his tractor from any loss or damage including theft of the tractor. There is no explanation for the complainant for leaving the key of tractor inside the ignition while leaving the plot where the tractor was parked and going back to his house. In the ordinary course of human conduct, no one would leave the key of the tractor inside the ignition and this is more so when the plot on which the tractor is parked is also not locked from outside. In such a situation, it would be possible for any person to enter a plot after opening the main gate which is just bolted but not locked from outside and commit theft of the tractor using the key which is left inside the ignition. The complainant/respondent therefore, clearly committed a breach of clause 5 of the policy extracted hereinabove. As a result, the insurer got absolved of all its liability to reimburse the complainant on account of theft of the tractor. The impugned orders are accordingly set aside and the complaint is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. The revision petition stands disposed of.