Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Honble Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President;
Mrs. A.S. Vijayakar, Mr. Y. Krishan, Mr. Brijendra Singh,
Mr. B.S. Yadav, Members.
S. BHAGAT SINGH—Petitioner
versus
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.—Respondent
Revision Petition No. 7 of 1991—Decided on 3.10.1991
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.K. Virmani, Advocate.
For the Respondent:M/s. Aggarwal Mishre & Co., Advocate.
The loss of the taxi-car was covered by the insurance policy as it fell under the definition of "theft" under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code, and the District Forum had jurisdiction to decide the dispute as a part of the cause of action accrued in Dehradun, where the vehicle was insured.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(O) - INSURANCE POLICY - THEFT - JURISDICTION - LOSS OF TAXI-CAR - WHETHER COVERED BY THE POLICY - WHETHER DISTRICT FORUM HAS JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE DISPUTE.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's taxi-car, insured with the respondent insurance company, disappeared from a taxi stand in Delhi. The police issued a final untraced report. The insurance company repudiated the claim, contending that the loss was not covered by the policy and that the dispute should be adjudicated by a civil court. The District Forum ordered the insurance company to pay the insured amount with interest. The State Commission set aside the order, holding that the District Forum lacked jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The National Commission held that the loss of the taxi-car was covered by the policy as it fell under the definition of "theft" under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code. The Commission also held that the District Forum had jurisdiction to decide the dispute as a part of the cause of action accrued in Dehradun, where the vehicle was insured.
Issues: 1. Whether the loss of the taxi-car was covered by the insurance policy? 2. Whether the District Forum had jurisdiction to decide the dispute?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Commission interpreted the term "theft" in the insurance policy broadly to include the dishonest taking away of the taxi-car by the driver, even if he initially had lawful possession of it. 2. The Commission held that the District Forum had jurisdiction to decide the dispute as a part of the cause of action accrued in Dehradun, where the vehicle was insured.
Final Decision: The Commission accepted the revision petition, set aside the order of the State Commission, and restored the order passed by the District Forum. The insurance company was directed to pay the insured amount with interest and costs.
B.S. Yadav, Member — This is a revision petition against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh by which the said Commission accepted the appeal filed by the present respondent, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun and dismissed the complaint filed by the present revision-petitioner, Bhagat Singh. The District Forum had ordered the Insurance Company to pay to the revision-petitioner, who was complainant before it, Rs. 84, (Zero)/-by 31st July, 1990. It was further ordered that in case, the Insurance Company failed to pay the said amount by the due date, the said amount was to carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 1st August, 1990 till the date of payment.
2. According to the averments made in the complaint before the District forum, the complainant was the owner of taxi-car bearing registration No. UMT-75°8. The said taxi used to ply between Dehradun and Delhi. The complainant had kept a paid driver named Bhupen Chandra Rana to ply that taxi. The said taxi was insured with the respondent Insurance Company and the current policy was valid from 20th June,. 1988 to 19th June, 1989. On 22nd January, 1989 the said taxi left Dahradun for Delhi with passengers. At Delhi, the taxi was parked at the Taxi stand, in Kamla Market and remained there till 25th January, 1989 as per records of that Taxi Stand. On the night intervening 25th and 26th Januaary, 1989, the said taxi was hired by some passengers and left the Taxi -Stand. After that the whereabouts of the taxi and the driver are not known.
When the taxi did not reach back Dehardun the complainant made enquiries about it and when he could not trace it, he lodged a report with the Kamla Market Police Station, Delhi on 4th February, 1989. The police could not trace the driver or the taxi and issued a final untraced report on 3rd August, 1989.
In the meantime, the complainant informed the respondent Insurance Company on 6th February, 1989 about the loss of the taxi. On receipt of the final report issued by the police, the complainant sent it to the respondent. One Shri U.K. Mehta, an officer from the Delhi office of the Insurance Company (respondents also made necessary investigations which were completed some four months prior to the filing of the complaint in the District Forum by the complainant. However, the Insurance Company, on one pretext or the other did not indemnify the complainant in respect of the loss of the Taxi. Finally the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum claiming Rs. 80,000/ - for which sum the taxi-car was insured with the respondent plus interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum.
3. The respondent Insurance Company contested the revision petition and pleaded that this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the claim of the complainant as there was no 'deficiency in service' as defined in Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, that the loss of the taxi was not a case of theft but a case of criminal misappropriation or breach of trust and this risk was not covered by the policy and hence the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated; that intricate facts were involved which required detailed evidence and, therefore, it would be proper for the parties to approach a Civil Court.
4. Form the pleadings of the parties it is clear that the/acts of the case are not much in dispute. The respondent Insurance Company does not dispute the fact that the taxi-car in question was insured with them for Rs. 80,000/- and the policy was in force at the relevant time. It is also not the case of the respondent that the taxi-car was not worth that amount at the time it was not inside. it is also not disputed that the said taxi-car left Taxi Stand Kamla Market on the night intervening 25th and 26th January , 1989, with passengers. As noticed earlier the case had been investigated also by Shri Mehta, an offic
