Page 25 - Insurance Times September 2015 SAMPLE

More or less to the effect, is the same meaning assigned in
Mitra's Legal and Commercial Dictionary, Fifth Edition.
Since, in the present case, there was a contract between
the insured and the insurer and, the word 'immediately',
under the circumstances, has to be construed within a
reasonable time having due regard to the nature of
circumstances of the case.
Learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on
judgment of National Commission in R.P. No. 375 of 2013 -
Sukhwinder Singh Vs. Cholamandalam & Anr. in which it was
held that if the driver was in the hurry to answer the call
of nature and the driver forgot to remove keys from the
ignition switch, he cannot be said to have committed willful
breach in violation of condition No. 5 of the policy.
In the case in hand, there is no averment in the FIR,
complaint etc. that Puneet Kumar along with his father
complainant were in hurry to answer the nature of call and
the driver forgot to take key with him. Rather, in motor
claim form, complainant tried to justify that the vehicle was
taken away at gun point.
In the aforesaid judgment Sukhwinder Singh (Supra),
judgment of this Commission reported in IV (2010) CPJ 297
(NC) - National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kamal Singhal was also
referred in which it was observed that the driver is not
expected to carry key of the vehicle with him while going
to answer the natural call, particularly, when the vehicle
was within his sight.
Reasonable Steps for Protection:
A simple task, yet one that is often overlooked due to
carelessness is to lock the vehicle. The owner/driver should
ensure that all the doors & windows (including sunroof) of
the vehicle are sealed tight. A small opening is all that a
thief needs to gain access. Vehicle needs to be locked even
if it's only a 2 minute stop to pick up the hot cup of tea.
And more importantly the key should not be left in the
vehicle in any case of urgency.
In the case of Bajaj Allianz General insurance Company Ltd.,
Vs. M/s Sagar Tour and Travels and Another, the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana decided on 11.08.2011 that "this
clause would mean that the insured shall take reasonable
steps for protection. Retention of a key in the car ought
not to be at all times taken as constituting so serious breach It is conceded that there is no evidence in form of affidavit
Copyright@ The Insurance Times. 09883398055 / 09883380339
as to disentitle the insured to make the claim under the
policy. It all depends on facts of the case”.
The car was said to have been lost at the time when the
driver had parked the vehicle in front of the house of his
relative but did not remove keys. The particular Clause 5
extracted above shall be read in the context of a person
deliberately doing an act that resulted in theft. If no willful
act could be attributed to the insured then this clause
cannot operate to exclude the liability of the insurance
company.
A human fallibility to forget is not the same as committing
violation of terms of the policy. The permanent Lok Adalat
had taken care to case some portion of liability on the
insured and has denied to him the 25% of the sum insured
under the policy. Thankfully for the insurance company,
claimant himself has not come by means of any writ petition
seeking for the entire amount".
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 06/06/2003
passed in consumer complaint no.93/1997, Mr. Vasant
Anant Sawant v/s. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. by District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigad at Alibag. It is
a case of arbitrary repudiation of the insurance claim by
respondent-Insurance Company (herein after referred as
Insurance Company) in case of theft of vehicle belonging to
the appellant/complainant. Admittedly, theft had taken
place on 18/07/1996.
On next day the FIR was lodged about the theft of the
vehicle in Dhule, Shirpur Taluka police station, which
ultimately after investigation issued a summary report.
Insurance claim was repudiated on the ground that, at the
time of happening of event, the vehicle was given on hire
and reward basis contrary to the terms of the insurance
policy. Said repudiation is based on the report submitted
by the investigator appointed by the Insurance Company.
Forum upheld the contention of the Insurance Company and
dismissed the consumer complaint. Feeling aggrieved
thereby, original complainant preferred this appeal. In the
instant case, forum relied upon statement of the daughter
of the complainant alleged to have been recorded by the
investigator Om Nityan and Enterprises (it is not made clear
as to who has recorded the same) dated 15/08/1996.
The Insurance Times, September 2015 21