Case nº Revision Petition No. 3434 of 2012 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, January 27, 2014 (case National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Ajay Kumar Amichand Kheera)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. K.K. Bhat, Advocate and For Respondents: Ms. Madhumita Bhattarcharjee, Advocate
PresidentV.B. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member) and Vinay Kumar, Member
Resolution DateJanuary 27, 2014
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


Vinay Kumar, Member

  1. The National Insurance Company has filed this revision petition challenging concurrent orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nasik and the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Both Fora have allowed the complaint No. CC/09/220 filed by Shri Ajay Kumar Amichand Kherra. The matter arose out of theft of a bus belonging to the Complainant on 22.6.2003 from Udaipur. The case of the Complainant is that the driver and cleaner of the truck had stopped at night for their meals at a Dabha. The vehicle was parked near the national highway where several other vehicles were also parked. When they returned after their meals from the Dabha, the bus was found to be missing. The driver lodged a complaint with the local police at Surajpol police station, Suljapur, Udaipur district and OP/Insurance Company was informed by the Complainant.

  2. Eventually, on 22.10.2008 the claim of the Complainant under the policy was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that the driver had kept the keys in the parked vehicle and left it unattended. This was treated as negligence on his part and violation of condition No. 5 of the policy. As per this condition, the insured was required to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage. Before the Fora below, case of the OP/National Insurance Company was that the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance are binding on both parties. It was contended that repudiation of the claim for violation of the terms and conditions of the policy did not constitute any deficiency of service.

  3. We have carefully considered the records filed on behalf of two sides. Mr. K.K. Bhat, Advocate has been heard on behalf of the revision petitioner/OP and Ms. Madhumita Bhatacharya, Advocate on behalf of the respondent/Complainant. Both sides were also given an opportunity to produce the case law in support of their respective claims.

  4. As seen from the record, the OP appointed one M.A. Qureshi as Investigator in this case. As per his report dated 30th January, 2004, the driver and the cleaner of the vehicle had parked the bus at a place on the Station Road, where most of the local tourist buses are usually parked. When they returned after their dinner and visit to some travel agencies, the bus was found to be missing. According to this report, the driver and the cleaner informed the local police at about 10.00 p.m. on the night of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT