Moomal Gas Agency vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

THE dispute in this revision petition is limited to the point whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the claim for indemnification of the loss on account of the alleged theft of the insured motor vehicle (truck) should have been allowed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (hereafter, the State Commission) at the full insured amount of Rs.12.50 lakh, instead of 75% thereof on non-standard basis.

WE have heard Ms. Manpreet Gill learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohan Babu Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent. It is clear from the documents on record, particularly the report of the investigator that the vehicle in question was stolen on 18th October 2007 while it was parked on the Sri Ganganagar By-pass Road, outside the godown of the petitioner (Gas Agency). While the theft of the vehicle is not in question, the point for consideration is whether the insured could be held to have taken due care for security of the insured truck in continuing to park the vehicle for several days in a row on the above-mentioned By-pass Road albeit just outside its own godown. It is not the case of the petitioner that there was no space inside the godown premises to park this newly purchased truck. On the other hand, it is contended that though the truck was parked on the road, the place of parking was just in front of the godowns front guard-room. In that event, the question would arise as to how the guard in the guard-room failed to detect and prevent the theft of the truck. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to throw any light on this issue which points to distinct lack of due care on the part of the insured in ensuring proper safety of the truck while it was parked. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the State Commission was justified in allowing the insured claim on non-standard basis (75% of the insured declared value) along with interest @ 9% per annum, interest starting to run after three months from the date of the theft till the payment. As a result, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own cost.