IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : January 07, 2025 National Insurance Company Limited .....Petitioner VERSUS Sanjeev Kumar and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Mr. R.C.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1. The petitioner herein is the Insurance Company, has made challenge to the award dated 10.12.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Camp at Jind by filing the instant petition, as cast under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Through the impugned award (supra), the application of respondent No.1 was allowed with costs, and the petitioner was directed to pay the insured amount to respondent No.1 i.e. Rs.25 lacs on account of theft of truck bearing registration No. HR-56A/6846, alongwith compensation of Rs.10,000/- and the litigation expenses were also assessed at Rs.3,000/-. The petitioner was further directed to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing of the application till the realization of the amount, within 2 months from the date of the award, and failing which the applicant was entitled to recover the total amount alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the realization of the amount from the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in an attempt to throw challenge to the impugned award (supra) has made the following submissions:-

i) That the claim of respondent No.1 was rightly repudiated in view of violation of condition No.5 of the insurance policy;

ii) That respondent No.1 has failed to immediately intimate the Insurance Company about the theft of the vehicle and the FIR in question was got registered after 2 days of the occurrence i.e. on 2.1.2016, whereas the theft was committed in the intervening night of 30/31.12.20215;

iii) That one ignition key was admittedly stolen 3-4 months back for which no police complaint was made and one ignition key of the stolen truck was hidden in the cabin of the truck itself, which amounts to negligence and violation of condition No.5 of the insurance policy, which specifically stated that the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle insured from loss or damage and to maintain it in efficient condition and since respondent No.1 himself was negligent, therefore, no responsibility can be fastened upon the Insurance Company. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanwarjit Singh Kang Vs. M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2022(3) PLR 475, wherein it was held that leaving a vehicle unattended on the roadside with ignition keys therein is sufficient ground to repudiate of the claim by the insurer. The relevant part of the same extracted hereinafter:-

“12. Moreover, the other pertinent part of the matter, that there had been want of reasonable care on the part of the petitioner or his employees in taking reasonable care of the insured vehicle, operates heavily against the petitioner. It is specifically found that the truck in question was left unattended on the roadside with ignition keys therein. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the assertions made by the driver in his affidavit that they had parked the vehicle on the road side 'after properly locking the same', but such a statement is incompatible with the statement given by the petitioner himself that the vehicle was stolen with the ignition keys. That being the position, repudiation of the claim of the petitioner cannot be faulted at.“

SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.1.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that respondent No.1 has taken all due care to prevent any theft and damage to the insured truck and after coming to know about the theft of the truck on 31.12.2015, he immediately informed the pol