The Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld a truck owner’s claim after rejecting an insurer’s attempt to deny coverage due to missing route permit and second key, emphasising the lack of causal connection to the theft.
The Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has rejected New India Assurance Company’s appeal against an order requiring it to pay a truck owner Rs 3.50 lakh after his vehicle was stolen, ruling that a missing route permit had no bearing on the theft and that the absence of a second key, by itself, did not amount to a fundamental breach of the policy.
A bench led by Justice Raj Shekhar Attri, with member Preetinder Singh, upheld the district consumer forum’s decision to award the insured declared value of the truck, along with Rs 10,000 for mental agony, harassment and litigation costs. The commission said the insurer’s case rested on assumptions rather than evidence and stressed that an insurance company can avoid liability only where a policy breach is both fundamental and directly linked to the loss.
The dispute arose after Deepak Goel bought a commercial vehicle package policy for his Tata truck covering November 23, 2021, to November 22, 2022. The vehicle was stolen on the night of November 25-26, 2021, while parked in a locked condition outside his office in Daria, Chandigarh. Goel reported the theft to police and the insurer, but the claim was later repudiated on September 18, 2023, with the company citing the absence of a valid route permit, alleged lack of care, delay in reporting and the non-production of the second key.
The commission noted that the insurer’s own investigator had found the theft to be genuine and recommended that the claim be processed under the policy terms. It also rejected the argument that Goel’s FIR statement , that the truck was old and could be opened or started by any key , proved negligence, saying the remark could not be read in isolation. The bench said there was no technical report or expert evidence to show the vehicle could actually be opened with an ordinary key, and no material to suggest fraud, collusion or wilful misconduct by the owner. Citing the Consumer Protection Act as a welfare law, the commission said the insurer could not rely on a route permit issue or the missing second key to defeat a theft claim with no causal connection to the loss.
Disclaimer: This article is intended to inform and educate, not to recommend or endorse any financial product, investment or strategy. Please consider your own financial circumstances and seek professional advice where appropriate before making financial decisions.
