Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 298
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajiv Sharma and Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ.
Asgar Khan - Appellant
Versus
Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Nuh & Ors. - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 1409 of 2016 (O&M) in Civil Writ Petition No. 2189 of 2016
Decided On : 17-02-2020
Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate, for the Appellant
Genuine insurance claims should not be rejected on technical grounds, and delay in intimation should be considered in light of the circumstances.
Headnote:
Insurance Claim - Delay in Intimation - Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 - Section 22-C - Summary: The court discussed the delay in intimation of theft to the insurance company and the filing of FIR, and emphasized that genuine claims should not be rejected on technical grounds. The court referred to relevant legal provisions and previous judgments to support its decision to allow the insurance claim.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's truck was stolen, and the insurance company rejected the claim due to delay in intimation and alleged negligence of the driver.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the FIR and intimating the insurance company did not justify the rejection of the claim. It also concluded that the alleged negligence was not proven.
Issues: Delay in intimation of theft, alleged negligence of the driver, and rejection of insurance claim.
Ratio Decidendi: Genuine claims should not be rejected on technical grounds, and delay in intimation should be considered in light of the circumstances.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Single Judge, quashed the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat, and directed the insurance company to release the insurance claim to the appellant with interest.
JUDGMENT
Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. - This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 21.04.2016 in CWP No. 2189 of 2016 titled Asgar Khan v. Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Mewat and another whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. In the writ petition, the appellant had challenged the award dated 23.10.2015 of the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) Camp Court at Nuh, whereby, his application under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 against the action of the respondent-Insurance Company in not releasing the insurance amount for theft of his truck, was dismissed.
3. The appellant is the registered owner of Truck No. HR-74-8448 which was insured with the respondent- Insurance Company for a value of Rs. 11,50,000/-. The policy was valid from 24.05.2013 to 23.05.2014. On the night of 30.09.2013, Jauru, the driver of the insured vehicle was going to village Nimli (Rajasthan) for loading the crusher. When he reached near the temple of Ferozepur Jhirka, he suffered pain in his abdomen and went to answer the call of nature after locking the vehicle and parking it at a safe place. When he returned after some time, he found the vehicle missing. He informed the appellant. The appellant, along with the driver reported the matter to the police at Police Station, Ferozepur Jhirka. They submitted an application dated 01.10.2013. The driver also submitted a complaint on 03.10.2013 to DSP, Ferozepur Jhirka. He sent another complaint through registered post on 09.10.2013 to the IG Mewat Range, Mewat which was received in his office on 16.10.2013. As FIR was not registered the driver thereafter filed a complaint dated 14.10.2013 before the Ld. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur Jhirka under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On the directions of the Ld. Magistrate, Ferozepur Jhirka, FIR No. 263 dated 24.10.2013 u/s. 379 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka. It is the case of the appellant that he also informed the respondent Insurance Company about the theft of the vehicle on 01.10.2013. He posted another letter dated 05.10.2013 through registered post intimating the Company about the theft. Claiming that despite repeated requests, the Insurance Company had not released the insurance amount in respect of the vehicle, he filed the application under Section 22-C before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) at Nuh.
4. Respondent - Insurance Company justified its action in not releasing the insurance amount by claiming that the appellant had violated the specific terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The appellant had not informed the insurance company immediately after the alleged theft of the truck. As per the Insurance Company, it was informed about the alleged theft for the first time on 24.10.2013 i.e., after a delay of 24 days. The FIR was also lodged on 24.10.2013. It was also contended that it was clear from the contents of the FIR and the statement of the appellant, duly countersigned by his driver Jauru, that the vehicle had been left unattended and unguarded without proper safeguard in the open with the keys in the vehicle itself. Thereby, there was violation of condition No. 1 and 4 of the Insurance contract.
5. Though the appellant had placed on record applications Annexures 2 and 3 being applications dated 01.10.2013 and 03.10.2013 addressed to the SHO, Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka and DSP, Ferozepur Jhirka for registration of case of theft, however, considering that the application Annexure 2 only carried a stamp of PS Ferozepur Jhirka without the signature of any police official about its receipt and there was no record of application Annexure 3 addressed to DSP Ferozepur Jhirka, the Ld. Permanent Lok Adalat held that it was difficult to conclude that the applications dated 01.10.2013 and 03.10.2013 had actually been sent by the appellants driver to SHO and DSP Ferozepur Jhirka. However, the appli
