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

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...
7 comments
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

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more