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

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...