UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. MAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS petition challenges the order dated 10. 1. 2007 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereafter, 'the State Commission') in F. A. No. 11 of 2007. By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner Insurance Company against the order dated 8. 11. 2006 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East III), Delhi (hereafter, 'the District Forum' ). By the last-mentioned order, the District Forum upheld the complaint of the complainant (respondent here) and directed the petitioner Insurance Company to pay her a sum of Rs. 1 lakh towards the insurance claim of the complainant for the loss of her truck (heavy goods vehicle - HGV) due to theft and, in addition, Rs. 5,000 by way of compensation and costs.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts are that a truck owned by the complainant was covered by the petitioner through a comprehensive insurance policy for Rs. 1 lakh during the period 24. 7. 2003-23. 7. 2004. On 11. 4. 2004, i. e. , within the validity of the insurance coverage, this truck, while being driven by one Pawan Kumar (the complainant's son), ran out of diesel. Pawan left the truck by the roadside and went to buy diesel and also fetch a mechanic to repair the leaf springs of the truck. The ignition key of the truck was also left on the dashboard. When Pawan returned after about two hours, he found the truck missing. A complaint was lodged with the police on 12. 4. 2004. After investigation, the police registered the FIR on 23. 4. 2004 and finally reported in July 2004 that the truck was "untraced". The complainant filed a claim with the petitioner-company on 1. 5. 2004. The Surveyor appointed by the petitioner on 7. 5. 2004 made spot inquiries on 9. 5. 2004 and after further detailed inquiries, including recording fresh statements of the complainant and others concerned, assessed the loss at Rs. 98,500 on 'total loss' basis but also reported that the insurance claim was not admissible because the terms and conditions of the policy had not been complied with when the truck went missing. Based on the Surveyor's report, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim by its letter dated 23. 11. 2004 on three counts, viz. , (i) Pawan did not have an effective and valid driving licence to drive the truck (an HGV) when the incident took place and the HGV licence that he produced later turned out to be fake on inquiry with the Licensing Authority concerned; (ii) he did not take the requisite care to safeguard the truck in accordance with the terms of the insurance policy as he left the truck unattended with the ignition key on the dashboard; and (iii) the theft of the truck was itself questionable, as varying statements on the sequence of relevant events were made by Pawan and the complainant at different points of time.

(3.) IN its judgment and order mentioned above, the District Forum held that whether or not Pawan possessed an effective and valid driving licence for an HGV at the relevant time leading to the theft of the truck had no nexus with the cause of loss of the insured truck, namely, theft, that the Insurance Company did not produce a copy of the official communication regarding Pawan's driving licence for HGV being a fake, that the theft of the truck had been established by the police report and that the negligence of the person at the wheel in leaving it unattended with the ignition key was not proved by the Insurance Company by producing the statement (s) of the complainant, as reported to have been recorded by the Surveyor. Accordingly, the District Forum passed the order as summarized above.