Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 1826
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajiv Sharma and Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ.
Asgar Khan - Appellant
Vs.
Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Nuh and Ors. - Respondent
L.P.A. No. 1409 of 2016 (O&M) in Civil Writ Petition No. 2189 of 2016
Decided On: 17-02-2020
For the Appellant :Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate
Claims should not be rejected mechanically on technical grounds, and delay in intimation should not be a shelter to repudiate genuine insurance claims.
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 repudiation of the claim on technical grounds. It highlighted the legal provisions and interpretations related to delay in intimation and negligence, emphasizing that claims should not be rejected mechanically on technical grounds. The court referred to relevant case laws and instructions from the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, emphasizing the need to avoid repudiation of genuine claims on technical grounds.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's truck was stolen, and the insurance company repudiated the claim based on delay in intimation and negligence of the driver. The Permanent Lok Adalat upheld the repudiation, and the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in intimation and the alleged negligence did not justify the repudiation of the claim. It emphasized that claims should not be rejected mechanically on technical grounds and directed the insurance company to release the insurance claim to the appellant.
Issues: Delay in intimation of theft, negligence of the driver, and repudiation of the insurance claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that delay in intimation and alleged negligence did not justify the repudiation of the claim, emphasizing that claims should not be rejected mechanically on technical grounds.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Single Judge was set aside, and the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat was quashed. The insurance company was directed to release the insurance claim to the appellant.
Harinder Singh Sidhu, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 21.04.2016 in CWP No. 2189 of 2016 titled 'Asgar Khan vs. 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 appellant's driver to SHO and DSP Ferozepur Jhirka. However, the application (
