Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.C. Kathuria, President and Shakuntla Yadav, Member
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Appellant
Versus
LAKHBIR SINGH - Respondent
First Appeal No. 3074 of 2001
Decided on : 05-03-2008
Insurance - Theft of Vehicle - Section 378, I.P.C. - Section 406, I.P.C. - Section 479, I.P.C. - 1994 (1) Con.LT 651 - 2003) 2 CPJ 595 - 1995) 3 CPJ 38 - 1991) 2 CPJ 700 - 2004) 3 CPJ 289
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's truck was insured, and the cleaner committed theft of the vehicle. The insurance company declined the claim, stating it was not covered under the policy. The District Forum found in favor of the complainant, awarding interest on the sum insured from the date of the untraced report.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the theft of the insured vehicle was covered under the policy, citing similar cases where the insurance company's repudiation of claims was deemed deficient. The court modified the interest awarded by the District Forum.
Issues: The core issue was whether the theft of the insured vehicle was covered under the policy. Additionally, the court addressed the justification for the opposite party not settling the claim within a reasonable period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal interpretations from previous cases to establish that the theft of the insured vehicle was covered under the policy. It also addressed the obligation of the opposite party to settle the claim within a reasonable period.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the appeal, directing the opposite party to pay the sum assured along with modified interest.
ORDER
R.C. Kathuria, President - Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 3.7.2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant direction has been given to the appellant-opposite party t o pay Rs. 4 lacs to the complainant along with interest @12% per annum from 24.1.1999 the date of untraced report till payment.
2. Put shortly, the facts of the case are that the complainant had insured his truck bearing registration No. DL-1GA-3346 of Model-1994, with the opposite party for the period 31.3.1998 to 30.3.1999 under cover note No. CH-081320 for a sum of Rs. 4 lacs under the comprehensive policy. On 23.9.1998 Sunil, Clearner/Conductor of the truck committed theft of the vehicle for which F.I.R. No. 658 dated 23.8.1998 was registered with the Police Station, Sadar Karnal. The police submitted untraced report dated 24.1.1999. The complainant submitted all the necessary documents to the opposite party for settlement of his claim under the policy. The opposite party did not take any action in this regard which forced the complainant to send a registered notice to the opposite party but without any response. Consequently, the present complaint was filed. The complaint was contested by the opposite party. In the written statement filed it was pleaded that the claim of the complainant as declined as per letter dated 2.12.1999 as the vehicle is question was not stolen but the cleaner of the vehicle had committed criminal breach of trust by taking away the vehicle and this claim was not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy issued to the complainant. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. On the basis of above pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum found no substance in the stand of the opposite party and issued the directions to the opposite party as noticed above. Hence, the present appeal at the behest of the opposite party.
3. Learned Counsel representing the parties have been heard at length.
4. Two fold submissions have been made by the learned Counsel representing the appellant-opposite party while seeking reversal of the order dated 3.7.2001 of the District Forum. Firstly, it was contended by him that as Sunil Kumar, Cleaner had taken away the truck on 23.9.1998 and in terms of the policy conditions, it would amount to criminal breach of theft and for that reason the opposite party was not fully justified in repudiating the claim which aspect has been totally ignored by the District Forum. Secondly, it was submitted that the claim had been filed without permitting the opposite party to investigate the case and for that reason the complainant was not entitled to file the present complaint. The submissions have been countered by the learned Counsel representing the respondent-complainant who justified the order of the District Forum for the reasons stated therein.
5. The core issue to be decided in this case is whether on the basis of admitted facts on record the claim of the complainant for theft of the insured vehicle is covered in terms of the policy or not. It is undisputed on record that on the intervening night of 22/23.9.1998 the driver of the vehicle had parked the vehicle by the side of the wall of Girls High School, Village Daha, District Karnal. On the next morning when the driver went to the above stated site, he found that the cleaner who was entrusted with the truck was not there and had taken the vehicle. Thereafter, the F.I.R. No. 658 dated 25.9.1998 was registered under Section 406, I.P.C. with the Police Station, Karnal. According to the repudiation letter dated 2.12.1999, the misappropriation of the vehicle would not amount to theft of property and for that reason the claim as such was not entertainable. Similar question arose in case Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another v. Rohit Kumar Gupta and Others , 1994 (1) Con.LT 651. In the above mentioned
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
