ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. TARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 20.03.2008, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in FA No. 1179/2003, "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Tara Singh", vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar in Consumer Case No. 1106/2002, filed by the deceased Tara Singh, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the deceased complainant Tara Singh obtained an Insurance Policy from the opposite party (OP) Insurance Company vide cover note No. 368933, issued on 06.06.2001, in respect of his tractor, having registration No. PB02AB 3458, covering all risks including theft, burglary etc. The tractor was financed by the OP -2 State Bank of India. It is stated in the consumer complaint that on 13.11.2001, Harpal Singh s/o Tara Singh complainant was returning from Amritsar on the said tractor, after having its service done, when he stopped the vehicle on road near Majitha bye -pass and went inside a juice bar for taking juice. However, when he came out after taking juice, he found that the tractor was missing. He reported the matter to the Police Station Sadar, where an FIR No. 630 was registered u/s 379 IPC. A claim was also lodged with the OP Insurance Company, which appointed an investigator to hold inquiry into the matter. The necessary documents were supplied to the said investigator. However, the OP Insurance Company repudiated the claim vide letter dated 13.09.2002, following which, the consumer complaint in question was filed, seeking directions to the OP to pay 3.98 lakhs towards loss suffered by the complainant alongwith interest @12% p.a. and also a compensation of 25,000/ - on account of mental agony etc.

(3.) In reply to the complaint, the OP Insurance Company took the plea that the insured had failed to exercise reasonable care of the tractor, as the son of the complainant left the ignition key inside the socket, when he went to the juice bar. The fact was clear from the report of the investigator as well as from the statement made by the insured and his son Harpal Singh. The terms and conditions of the policy had, therefore, been violated by the insured and hence, the claim had rightly been repudiated by the Insurance Company.