Skip to main content

Insurance claim denied as driver left vehicle unlocked

The apex consumer commission has dismissed a man's plea seeking insurance claim for his stolen truck, holding that there was "negligence" on the part of the driver who had left the vehicle "unlocked".

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench, presided by Justice J M Malik, dismissed the petition filed by Rajasthan resident Jagdish Prasad Bakshi who had sought insurance claim for his stolen truck, saying he has not come before it with clean hands.

"In case truck was locked, its key was not produced either before the police or before surveyor. The truck remained on spot unlocked for half an hour. Surveyor of the insurance company has reported that when the driver left for having tea, he left the key inside the truck. The complainant has not come to the court with clean hands," the bench, also comprising its member S M Kantikar, said.

The bench said it "is quite possible that driver may be working in cahoots with the thief".

It said the first and foremost duty of the driver was to produce the key before the police.

"However, the needful was not done. That is fatal. This clearly reveals negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the driver," the commission said.

Bakshi had approached the apex consumer commission with his revision petition challenging an order passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which had dismissed his plea for insurance claim on the ground that the driver was negligent in taking care of the truck as he left the key inside the truck.

The driver of the truck had stopped the vehicle at 3 AM in front of a roadside eatery situated along a highway in Rajasthan. When the driver returned, he could not find the truck there. An FIR was lodged in which it was stated that the vehicle was locked.

When he approached the insurance company for the claim, his plea was rejected and he moved consumer forum seeking a direction to Oriental Insurance Company to pay him the insured amount.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/insurance-claim-denied-as-driver-left-vehicle-unlocked-114052900837_1.html

Comments

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...