Skip to main content

Truck left with key in ignition: NCDRC denies theft claim

The apex consumer commission has dismissed a man's appeal seeking over Rs 7 lakh compensation from an insurance company for his stolen truck, noting that the driver himself had left the key in ignition.

In its order, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission also raised serious objections on the failure of Delhi Police's SHO to register the FIR of the theft on the day of incident itself.

The NCDRC bench, presided by Justice V K Jain, rejected the revision petition of Arjun Lal Jat, filed against the Rajasthan State Commission's order.

The state commission had held that Jat was not entitled to get any compensation from HDFC Irgo General, which had insured his truck.

The NCDRC passed the order while noting that the driver was the only person in the vehicle and he had left it in start condition with the keys in the ignition.

"... It can hardly be disputed that 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 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," the NCDRC bench, also comprising its member B C Gupta, said.

It added that once it was shown that the theft took place solely on account of driver, employed by Jat, the insurance firm cannot be made liable for such negligent act on the part of the driver and cannot be directed to reimburse the insured.

Jat had told the NCDRC that his truck, insured with the company, was stolen from in front of All India Institute of Medical Sciences on January 20, 2010 and an FIR was lodged in this regard on January 29, 2010.

He also lodged a claim with the insurance firm. However, after it denied to pay the claim, Jat approached the district consumer forum, seeking a direction to the firm to pay Rs 7.16 lakh.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/truck-left-with-key-in-ignition-ncdrc-denies-theft-claim-114090300828_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more