LAWS(MAD)-2010-4-6

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN FATHIMA AKTHAR COURT

Decided On April 29, 2010
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., Appellant
V/S
INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN, FATHIMA AKTHAR COURT, CHENNAI-18 Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd Respondent purchased a new brand Honda City car from Sundaram Motors, Chennai in August, 2004 and took a comprehensive insurance coverage of his Honda City car from the time of purchase with Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited. The value of the Honda City car was declared as Rs. 6,39,100/-. Therefore, the 2nd Respondent paid a total sum of Rs. 23,768/- as premium covering the insurance period from 18.08.2004 to 17.08.2005 for his Honda City car having registration No. TN 01 X 8658. The Insurance Company has also given policy No. UPOO Ol7669000100. The same is also evidenced by the R.C. Book.

(2.) While so, the claimant, D. Chandramouli/the 2nd Respondent herein, went to Park Hotel at Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai, to attend a wedding anniversary function at 9.50. p.m. on 14.05.2005 with his Honda City car driven by himself. After reaching the portico of the Park Hotel, as there was a facility of valet parking in the Hotel, after alighting from the cat, the Security staff of the Hotel took delivery of the car and issued him car parking token bearing No. 66174. The Hotel has video camera arrangements installed at the portico to photograph the vehicles entering into the Hotel and delivered to them for moving into the parking lot. The claimant, D. Chandramouli the 2nd Respondent herein, after attending the wedding anniversary function, reached the portico of the Hotel and asked for delivery of the car by showing the parking token bearing No. 66174 issued by the Hotel staff. Unfortunately, the car was missing. After a thorough search, the Hotel Authority and the Security informed the claimant that the key and the car are missing. The Hotel staff also reported that the car was stolen. Immediately, on 15.05.2005 at 10.00 a.m. the claimant, the 2nd Respondent herein, reported in writing, the missing of his car and lodged a compliant with E3 Teynampet Police Station, Chennai mentioning that he had left his Office Bag in his car which contains the Pass Book, Cheque Book, Credit Cards, L.I.C. Policies, Cash and one A.T.M. Card of Indian Overseas Bank. The claimant again addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Police on 19.05.2005 in this regard. The Crime Branch police of Teynampet submitted in application to the Metropolitan Magistrate, 18th Court, stating that the investigation conducted by them indicated that the car was stolen and thereafter, a case under Section 379 of I.P.C. was registered for further enquiry and investigation. Thereafter, the Park Hotel also, by letter dated 19.05.2005 confirmed the occurrence of theft. Subsequently, the Hotel Manager also accompanied the claimant, the second Respondent herein, to Police Station for lodging a compliant. After all these things, the insurer repudiated liability to indemnify by letter dated 08.06.2005 on the ground that the car has been lost in the custody of the Hotel and the loss does not clearly fall within the scope of the insurance policy. By a communication, the second Respondent herein represented the matter personally for review of the claim in his letters dated 14.07.2005 and 25.07.2005. Again the insurer, the Petitioner herein, vide another letter dated 29.07.2005, reiterated their earlier stand and refused to indemnify the loss. The insurance policy deals with occurrences and events could not arise to a claim and the policy and theft is in the event covered by the policy. Otherwise, the theft and risk covered by the insurance policy. In a contract of indemnity, the insurer namely, the Petitioner herein should be concerned with the direct cause of loss and if an insured risk operates, his liability is certain and should be met. When the insured/the owner of the car has taken an insurance coverage by paying a sum of Rs. 23,768/- as annual premium for the total value of the car of Rs. 6,39,100/- he has an insurable interest in respect of motor car bearing registration No. TN 01 X 8658.

(3.) The claim of the insurer/the 2nd Respondent was repudiated and the matter reached the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman took up the case and after giving an opportunity to both sides, passed an award under Rule 16 of the Redressal of Public Grievance Rules, 1998 holding the Petitioner herein, liable for the loss and thus, allowed the complaint in favour of the owner of Honda City car. The correctness of the award passed by the Ombudsman is put to challenge in the present writ petition.