AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
The present Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed against the order dated 11.06.2018 in Complaint No.12 of 2016 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (for short "the State Commission").
The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent/Complainant purchased an insurance policy for Rs.24,70,000/- insuring his truck bearing registration No.UP-35-T-5721 bearing engine No.MAT-448117EAD-03746. He is the registered owner of the said truck holding a permit No.32/111/GOOD/2014/46861 and a valid fitness certificate issued by the Transport Department. The policy was valid for the period from 16.05.2014 to 15.05.2015. His vehicle was stolen from Kanpur Road on 25.09.2014, along with all the relevant vehicle related papers which were inside the vehicle. He lodged an FIR on 29.09.2014. According to the Complainant, the truck was loaded with goods worth Rs.10,00,000/- at the time of theft. He sent a letter dated 27.09.2014 to the Appellant, intimating the theft of the vehicle. Surveyor was appointed on 21.12.2014 by the Appellant. Meanwhile after investigation, the police also submitted its report with the Magistrate Court on 11.04.2015. Several communications took place between the parties and finally, vide letter dated 14.03.2016, the Appellant repudiated the claim of the Complainant/Respondent. Thereafter, the Complaint was filed wherein the Complainant/Respondent had alleged that the repudiation was wrong and claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards cost of rent in hiring vehicle in lieu of the stolen vehicle; Rs.2,50,000/- towards damages and other miscellaneous expenses; Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and the insurance claim.
The claim of the Respondent/Complainant was contested by the Appellant on two grounds. Firstly that there was a delay of four days in informing the factum of theft to insurer and secondly, the Respondent was himself negligent as his helper and conductor left the keys of the vehicle in the vehicle itself and thus, had promoted the theft.
The parties led their evidences. After hearing both the parties, vide impugned order the State Commission had rejected both the contentions of the Appellant and following the dictum of this Fora in "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pravin Krushna Takari, I (2018) CPJ 80 (NC)" granted the claim on "non-standard basis" @ 75% of the insured amount which came to be Rs.18,52,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application to the date of final payment and also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs.
The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that findings are contrary to the law and to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
I have heard arguments of learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the relevant record.
As regards the delay in informing the Appellant is concerned, from the facts proved on record it is clear that the theft had taken place on 25.09.2014 and the Respondent/Complainant sent a letter of intimation to the Appellant dated 27.09.2014 which was received by the Appellant on 29.09.2014. The theft had occurred on 25.09.2014 at about 10p.m. and therefore within 2 days, intimation of theft had been sent to the Appellant. I am satisfied that there was hardly any delay of the nature which defeats the claim of the Respondent/Complainant. The argument has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed.
The facts proved on record are that the helper and the conductor left key in the ignition chamber, when both of them went to attend nature's call, in this way they had compromised the security of the vehicle. The State Commission duly considered this contention and die not grant the 100% claim to the Respondent/Complainant, but had awarded 75% of the insured amount in terms of the order of this Commission in Pravin Krushna Takari's case (supra). I find no Illegality in the order as the order is in conformity with the facts proved on record and the settled law.
The Appeal has no merits and the same is dismissed in limine.