Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.S. Madan, President, Dr. Rekha Sharma and Diwan Singh Chauhan, Members
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
SUKHJIT SINGH - Respondent
First Appeal No. 768 of 2007
Decided on : 30-04-2010
Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate, for the Appellant; None., for the Respondent
Delay in reporting theft and violation of insurance policy terms justified the repudiation of the complainant's claim.
Headnote:
Insurance - Theft of Tractor - [IPC, Section 379; Insurance Act, 1938] - The court discussed the violation of insurance policy terms and conditions, delay in reporting the theft, and relevant case laws to justify the repudiation of the complainant's claim.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's tractor was stolen, and the insurance claim was repudiated due to delay in reporting the theft and violation of insurance policy terms.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in reporting the theft and the violation of insurance policy terms justified the repudiation of the complainant's claim.
Issues: Delay in reporting theft, violation of insurance policy terms, and justification of claim repudiation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in reporting the theft and the violation of insurance policy terms justified the repudiation of the complainant's claim.
Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, the impugned order was set aside, and the complaint was dismissed.
ORDER
R.S. Madan, President - The brief facts not disputed between the parties are that tractor bearing Registration No. HR 24E-5537 owned by the respondent-complainant was insured with the appellant-opposite party w.e.f. 18.9.2001 to 17.9.2003. On 1.9.2002 the above said tractor was handed over by the complainant to his servant Sohan Singh for doing some agriculture work in his fields. While returning to him, the tractor breaks down/stopped near a railway line and did not start. After leaving the tractor there, Sohan Singh went to call a mechanic to repair the tractor and when Sohan Singh returned, he found tractor missing from the place it was left.
2. On 14.9.2002, Harcharan Singh, father of the complainant, got recorded F.I.R. No. 48 dated 14.9.2002 under Section 379, I.P.C. in Police Station, General Railway Police, Sirsa. During investigation, the tractor could not be located. The police submitted untraceable report on 22.3.2002. Intimation was given to the appellant-opposite party on 17.10.2002 upon which Shri R.N. Sharma, D.S.P. (Retired) was appointed who investigated the matter. The complainant submitted claim to the opposite party, however, the same was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that there was delay on the part of the complainant in giving information with respect to the theft of the tractor due to which the truck could not be located and also that the claim submitted by the complainant was on false grounds.
3. Challenging the repudiation of his claim, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and resisted the claim on the ground stated above.
4. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence brought on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint vide its order dated 12.1.2007 and issued direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 2,70,000 to the complainant as insured amount along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of complainant's claim; Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation.
5. Hence, this appeal.
6. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant-opposite party and perused the case file. None appeared to argue the case on behalf or respondent-complainant.
7. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant-opposite party that the complainant himself has stated in his complaint his servant Sohan Singh after leaving the tractor near a railway line, had gone to call a mechanic to repair the tractor and when he returned, the tractor was found missing. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant-opposite party the act of Sohan Singh i.e. complainant's servant was against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy because the tractor was left unattended and for that reason, the complainant is not entitled for any insurable claim.
8. In support of his arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant-opposite party placed reliance on case law cited as Yeti Packers Pvt. Ltd. v. United Insurance Co. Ltd., (1997) 1 CPJ 417, wherein the facts of the case were that the van was left unattended and without locking the same and for that reason, it was held that the complainant had violated the Clause No. 3 of the Insurance Policy and no claim was paid by the Insurance Company to the claimant.
9. Further reliance is placed on United India Insurance Company Limited v. Shivali Cement Pvt. Ltd., (1999) 3 CPJ 264, wherein the facts were that the scooter was left unattended and the cash amount of Rs. 2,15,500, kept in the basket of the scooter was stolen. The complainant filed the complaint but it was held that the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and as the complainant himself was negligent in not taking adequate care to see that the money which he kept in the basket of the scooter, was not stolen and the complaint on that account was dismissed.
10. Another contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant-opp
