Surat: If you are not in your car when theft is committed, the car still cannot be termed ‘unattended’ and you can get insurance. Defining an ‘unattended car’, city consumer disputes redressal commission (CDRC) has ordered an insurance firm to pay Rs 50,000 for theft of a bag of cash from a car. The forum ruled that the insurance firm has failed to define an ‘unattended car’ and observed that if the car is unattended due to an accident and a person is nearby, it still cannot be called ‘unattended’ even if the policy holder is not inside the car.The case pertains to Surat trader Chetan Mehta who had a ‘Shopkeepers’ Insurance Policy’ for one year starting from April 28, 2016. The policy included Rs 50,000 cover for ‘money in transit’ component. On March 25, 2017, Mehta was travelling towards his home in his car after shutting his shop, carrying Rs 62,000 cash.At that time, two people stopped his car and told Mehta that he had hit an elderly person who was lying behind. Mehta saw a person lying on the road a few steps away. So, he locked his car and walked towards the person. At that time, two people on a two-wheeler broke his car’s glass to steal the bag with cash. Mehta filed a complaint of theft with Umra police station and later filed an insurance claim with The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.However, the claim was rejected by the insurance firm over ‘unattended car’ exception-7 written in the policy. So, Mehta filed a case with Surat CDRC on Jan 21, 2019.However, the commission has observed that the car cannot be termed ‘unattended’. “Complainant has not gone anywhere else after leaving the car. After being informed that an accident took place, he went near his car to see it. As the complainant was at a spot near his car, the car cannot be termed unattended,” the commission observed.The commission also noted that there is no definition given for ‘unattended’ in the policy. So, this incident cannot be included in that category. “If a person is at home and staying in one room but the theft takes place in another room, the home cannot be termed unattended. It is not necessary that a person should remain present in every room. In this case also, the person has not abandoned the car or left it and gone somewhere else for work.”CDRC accepted the complainant’s argument of deficiency in service and ordered the insurance firm to pay ‘in transit risk cover’ of Rs. 50,000 with 8% interest and Rs 2,500 for harassment and application expenses.
