Arjun Lal Jat v. Hdfc Irgo General Insurance Co. Ltd.

towards the compensation for the physical and mental suffering undergone by the complainant totalling to Rs. 7,61,000/- (Rupees Seven lacs sixty one thousand only).

(b) The opposite parties be further directed to pay 18 percent interest annually of the claimed amount, for the delay in making the payment from the date of theft of the said vehicle i.e. 19.01.2010 till the date of final payment of the claim."

2. The District Forum, vide its order dated 16.03.2012, directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs to the complainant alongwith interest on that amount at the rate of 10% per annum. The Insurance Company was also directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 11,000/- and cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 3,000/-. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the Insurance Company approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been allowed by the State Commission vide impugned order dated 05.05.2014, the complainant is before us, by way of this revision petition.

3. A perusal of the signed statement given by the driver of the truck namely Sh. Hemraj on 25.02.2010 would show that in the night intervening 19/20.01.2010, he left the truck in start condition near All India Institute of Medical Science and went out to ease himself. When he returned after 10-15 minutes, the vehicle was found missing. He informed the owner of the truck at about 7.50.am.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant states that the aforesaid statement was given by the driver to the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company and not to the police. However, for our purpose, it is immaterial whether the aforesaid statement was made to the police or to the surveyor. What matters is that the authenticity of the aforesaid documents was not disputed by the complainant either before the District Forum or before the State Commission. This was not the case of the complainant before the fora below that the surveyor had pressurized the driver of the truck to make the aforesaid statement. It is quite obvious from the above referred statement of the truck driver that he was the only person in the vehicle, at the time he stopped it near All India Institute of Medical Science in New Delhi, in the night intervening 19/20.01.2010. It is also evident from the statement that the driver left the truck in start condition, meaning thereby that the key of the truck was in the ignition at the time, the driver went out to ease himself. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that the aforesaid statement can not necessarily be interpreted to mean that the key was in the ignition, we cannot accept that contention. A vehicle cannot remain in start condition, once the key is taken out of the ignition. The vehicle, in case the key is taken out of the ignition, will immediately stop running. Therefore, it can hardly be disputed that the driver left the truck unattended with the key of the truck in the ignition. Had the driver not left the key in the ignition, it might not have been possible for the thief to commit theft of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle was clearly negligent in leaving the truck unattended with the key inside the ignition. In our opinion, once it is shown that the theft took place solely on account of the driver, employed by the insured, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable for such negligent act on the part of the driver and cannot be directed to reimburse the insured. For this reason alone, the order passed by the State Commission is eminently justified. This is without our going into the question as to whether leaving keys in the ignition, and leaving the vehicle unattended amounts to breach of the terms and conditions of the policy.

2

5. The State Commission entertained serious doubt on the veracity of the certificate purported to be issued by the SHO, Police Station Hauz Khas, stating therein that the complainant/petitioner had initially come to the Police Station on 20.01.2010, but since he was not in a position to explain all the facts in detail, his FIR was not registered on that day. We fail to appreciate how the SHO could have refused to register the FIR on 20.01.2010, when the only detail he required for registration of the FIR was the number of the vehicle, name of the driver and date, time and place of the theft and all these information obviously would be available with the complainant as well as his driver, at the time either of them approached the Police Station. Another discrepancy we note in the certificate purported to be issued by the Police Station Hauz Khas is that as per the certificate, it was the complainant Sh. Arjun Lal, who stated before the SHO that in the night intervening 19/20.01.2010, he had parked truck no. RJ 142G 4283 on Ring Road opposite AIIMS for attending the natural call while going to Bhawri from Haridwar and on return, he had found the truck missing. On the other hand, the case of the complainant as also reflected in the statement of the driver is that it was Mr. Hemraj, driver of the truck, who had parked the truck near AIIMS in the night intervening 19/20.01.2010 and had gone out to ease himself. Be that as it may, since in our opinion, the alleged theft took place solely on account of the negligence on the part of the person who was driving the truck, we need not go further into the issue of authenticity of the aforesaid certificate purporting to be issued by the SHO, Police Station- Huaz Khas.

6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no ground in the revision petition and the same is dismissed.

......................J

V.K. JAIN

PRESIDING MEMBER

......................

DR. B.C. GUPTA

MEMBER

3