“The law does not and cannot compel an insured individual or their employee to jeopardise their physical safety or risk their life merely to guard a depreciating material asset,” the commission said on September 16, rejecting the insurer’s argument that someone should have remained with the luxury car overnight.
The dispute arose from the night of March 8, 2012, when Patil’s car developed a tyre puncture on a state highway. According to the complaint, the car was moved to the roadside near a food outlet, its windows were rolled up, and it was securely locked. Patil and his driver returned to Solapur in another vehicle. The next morning, the car was found completely burnt, with the incident subsequently documented by the police and fire department.
Car left without precautions
The car was insured under a policy valid from December 22, 2011 to December 21, 2012, with an ‘Insured Declared Value’ (IDV) of Rs 70 lakh. Patil had paid a premium of Rs 1,65,996. The insurer registered the claim as a total loss but later rejected it, arguing that the vehicle had been left unattended without proper precautions to prevent further damage or loss.
The insurer said Patil or his driver should have stayed with the car, changed the punctured tyre using the spare tyre, or moved it to a safer location. It also questioned why the second vehicle could not have been used to tow the vehicle back to Solapur.
The insurer also relied on Patil’s police statement acknowledging that the car had been left overnight. It disputed the suggestion that burning grass caused the fire, noting that the burnt grass was about 50 metres away. It further argued that the car’s value after depreciation was not more than Rs 59 lakh.
Story continues below this ad
Commission rejects insurer’s ground
The commission found that said rule did not completely prohibit leaving a broken-down vehicle unattended. It required proper precautions, which had to be assessed according to the circumstances of each case. It found that the car had not been recklessly abandoned in the middle of the highway. It had been moved to the side of the road near a landmark, and its windows were rolled up, and it was locked.
The puncture occurred late at night and, according to the material before the commission, no tyre repair facility or mechanic was available at Dhulkhed. The commission held that returning to Solapur in another vehicle while leaving the car securely parked was a practical decision in those circumstances.
The commission also found no evidence establishing a direct connection between leaving the car unattended and the fire. The police panchnama and fire brigade report did not establish the exact origin of the fire, while the insurer had not produced forensic evidence showing that Patil’s absence directly caused the vehicle to catch fire.
It further held that failure to change the tyre did not justify rejecting a total-loss claim arising from a separate peril such as fire. Finding no evidence of wilful infringement, gross negligence or mala fide conduct, the commission held that Patil had not violated the rule and that the repudiation amounted to deficiency in service.
Story continues below this ad
The commission also rejected the insurer’s argument that the car’s value should be reduced to Rs 59 lakh. It held that once the IDV had been agreed upon and the corresponding premium charged, that value became binding for a total-loss claim. The complaint was partly allowed. The insurer was directed to pay Rs 70 lakh with 7 per cent annual interest from November 23, 2012, the date of repudiation, until actual realisation.
Takeaway
If your vehicle breaks down at night, take reasonable steps to secure it, but your personal safety comes first. In this case, the commission held that leaving a locked vehicle unattended did not by itself justify rejecting the insurance claim, particularly when there was no evidence linking the alleged breach to the fire.
Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Maharashtra contact: 022 22821810, 22821770) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
Do not miss out on these stories
Rs 333 railway room, wrong toilet, Rs 20,000 compensation for 72-year-old man
Story continues below this ad
Cleared of negligence, Delhi hospital, doctor to pay Rs 5 lakh to cancer patient’s family
‘Green pastures at policy time’: United India to pay trader’s Rs 2.04 lakh theft claim
