NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 3840 OF 2011
(Against the Order dated 12/08/2011 in Appeal No. 1230/2008 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. DEVINDER KUMAR
S/o Sh Ahmna Kumar, R/o Village Murlipur tehsil and Rewari
Haryana ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Now through Authorized officer of Regional Office SCO No- 337-340, Sector- 35-B
Chandigarh ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.Kabra, Advocate for Mr. Ranvir Yadav, Advocate For the Respondent : NEMO
Dated : 02 Apr 2012
ORDER
The subject matter of this revision petition emanate from the theft of a dumper-truck belonging to the revision petitioner/ Complainant. The vehicle was insured with the respondent/OP at the time of the loss.
2. The Insurance Company treated it as a case of 'no-claim' and closed the claim under the policy. Therefore, a consumer complaint was filed by the complainant/owner of the vehicle. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari allowed the complaint holding that there was no negligence on the part of the driver. However, the State Commission allowed the appeal of the National Insurance Company and set aside the order of the District Forum, with the following observation—
"Having perused the case file and the documents produced on record, we are of the firm view that the complainant is not entitled for any claim because he has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance
1
Policy. Annexure A-2 is the copy of F.I.R. No.115 dated 9.7.2007 under Section 379 I.P.C. Police Station, Khol (Rewari) wherein it has been clearly stated that the driver had left the ignition key in the vehicle while he was sleeping on a cot."
3. It is seen from the record of the case that theft took place on the night of 8.7.2006 and an FIR was lodged on the very next date i.e. 9.7.2006 with the local police by Manoj Kumar S/o Hari Chand Aheer, driver of the dumper-truck. In this FIR, while giving the details of the incident the driver has also informed that he had left the key in the dumper itself and that the cabin of the truck could not be locked, as the lock was out of order. The FIR also shows that on the night of the incident, the dumper was parked by the driver outside a hotel and the driver had gone to sleep on a cot placed near the fuel tank of the dumper-truck. The FIR also says that this dumper was parked behind another dumper belonging to the Complainant.
4. The District Forum observed that there was practically no distance between the parked dumper-truck and the place where the driver was sleeping. Therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the driver. Accordingly, the Forum allowed the complaint.
5. We have perused the records of the case and heard the counsel for the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner has filed a copy of the relevant FIR, though only after specific direction from this Commission.
6. We have seen the facts of the case, as narrated by the driver of the dumper-truck in the FIR of 9.7.2006, in comparison with the facts as detailed by the complainant in his consumer complaint filed before the District Forum on 4.6.2007. The complaint petition is found to contain a significant omission. It does not mention that the key of the vehicle was left inside and that the cabin lock of the vehicle was not working. Both these, pieces of information are contained in the FIR as well as in the written statement of the OP/National Insurance Company. There is no explanation why the Complainant chose to
2
omit these details when they had already figured specifically in the FIR.
7. It is strange that the driver of the dumper-truck chose to leave the key in the vehicle, knowing that the lock of the cabin of the vehicle was not functioning. It is equally strange that the driver who claimed to be sleeping practically at no distance from the vehicle had to be told by someone else that the vehicle had been stolen.
8. In our view, the District Forum was wrong in holding that there was no negligence on the part of the driver. For the same reason, we find ourselves in full agreement with the view taken by the State Commission. The revision petition has no merit and fails to carry any conviction. The same is therefore, dismissed and the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana in FA No.1230 of 2008 confirmed. No order as to costs.
......................J
V. B. GUPTA
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
VINAY KUMAR
MEMBER
3
Comments