Amit Kumar vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY

PRESENT revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 19.4.2007 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (for short as ''State Commission'') vide which appeal against order dated 3.8.2001, passed by District Forum, Patna, was allowed.

BRIEF facts of this case are that petitioner/complainant was owner of Jeep bearing registration No. WNF-8560 and got the same insured on 13.8.1992 with respondents/opposite parties. On 14.7.1993, the Jeep was stolen and therefore on 21.7.1993, he filed a claim before the respondents. However, respondents did not make any payment of the claim till filing of the complaint. With respect to the theft, petitioner lodged an F. I. R. with Bhabhua P.S. on 14.7.1993. Respondents asked the petitioner to furnish necessary documents. Accordingly, all the documents were given to the respondents but the claim was not disposed of. It is also stated that that police had submitted final report showing "occurrence true but no clue". Thereafter, petitioner filed a complaint before District Forum, Patna.

THE insurance as alleged is not denied by the respondents. But they took the plea in written statement that petitioner did not observe prudence expected from a common man. As alleged by the petitioner, he handed over his Jeep to a so-called mechanic on the road moving with two ranches in his hand for removing the defect in the brake of the Jeep and who on the pretext of taking the Jeep to his workshop fled away with the Jeep. Thus, there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance and therefore, the claim was rejected.

DISTRICT Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to pay the insured amount of Rs. 1,80,000 with interest thereon @ 10% per annum.

AGGRIEVED by the order of District Forum, respondents filed an appeal before the State Commission and appeal of the respondents was accepted.

PETITIONER No. 2 has appeared in person and has argued on behalf of petitioners. Whereas, on behalf of respondents, Mr. Salil Paul, Advocate has advanced his arguments.

IT is contended by petitioner No. 2 that State Commission has wrongly set aside the order of the District Forum by holding that petitioner had not exercised reasonable care in allowing the vehicle to be taken away by an unknown person. It is argued that since petitioner got stranded on the road with his family members hence, it was not possible to go with the vehicle by leaving the family alone on the road at an unknown place.

IT is also argued that petitioner has not committed any breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and has acted with all prudence, according to the situation at the spot.

IN support, petitioner cited the following judgments: (i) Satish Prasad Sahu v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., IV (2006) CPJ 432 (NC); (ii) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another v. Rohit Kumar Gupta and Others, I (1994) CPJ 196 (NC)=First Appeal No. 335 of 1992, decided by this Commission on 31.1.1994; and (iii) S. Bhagat Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., II (1991) CPJ 700 (NC)=First Appeal No. 335 of 1992, decided by this Commission on 3.10.1991.

ON the other hand, it is argued by learned Counsel for the respondent that petitioner did not take proper care before handing the vehicle to an unknown person. Thus, petitioner has violated the terms and conditions No. 4 of the Insurance Policy. Thus, there is no illegality or ambiguity in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Under these circumstances, present revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

IT is an admitted case of both the parties that petitioner has handed over his vehicle, when its brake is purported to have been failed, to an unknown roadside mechanic.

THE question to be seen under these circumstances is, as to whether there is a violation of any term and conditions of the insurance policy or not?

CONDITION No. 4 of the Insurance Policy, is reproduced as under: "4. The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the Motor Car from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and the Company shall have at all times free and full access to examine the Motor Car or any part thereof or any driver or employee of the insured. In the event of any accident breakdown the Motor Car shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to present further damage or loss and if the Motor Car be driven before the necessary repairs are effected any extension of the damage or any further damage to the motor car shall be entirely at the insured''s own risk."

ACCORDING to the above condition, the insured has to take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage, as it clearly stipulates that "In the event of any accident breakdown the Motor Car shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss".

IN the present case, petitioner did not take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from the loss. Petitioner at his own risk, handed over the vehicle to an unknown roadside mechanic, which is a clear cut violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.

THE judgments cited by petitioner in support of its contentions are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in none of the above rulings there was any such condition in the insurance policy which exists in the Insurance Policy of the present case.

ACCORDINGLY, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. As such, present revision petition is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed.

NO order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.