Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.

1.         This petition is filed U/s.12  of C.P.Act by the  complainant.

2.         The  brief  facts of the  complainants case  is that , he   is  a registered  owner of  a  vehicle TATA LPT- 2515 truck  bearing  Regd. No. OR-05- AC-8721. The  said  vehicle was insured  under the  opp.party  against   risk  of  theft  and the  policy number  was  163800/31/09/6300001870 . On 08.04.2010 the  said  vehicle  was   proceeding to Paradeep  from Talcher being loaded with  coal. After the  said  vehicle  was left Talcher the  complainant  could  not able to trace it  out    after constant  search. So  on 12.04.2010  the  complainant  informed  about the said fact  to the  opp.parties  . An FIR  was lodged at Colliery police station and  after    due  investigation the  driver  of the  vehicle Ajay Ku.Sahu  was  arrested  and forwarded to the court of Learned S.D.J.M,Talcher  U/s. 408 IPC.Charge sheet was  submitted in the  said  court which was registered as G.R.Case No. 278  of 2010. Thereafter  on the report  of the complainant   the  opp.party entered  his  claim bearing No. 163800/31/10/639000007 and  by letter  dtd. 03.09.2010 requested the complainant  to submit  police record in   connection with the  vehicle . Accordingly  the  complainant  submitted all the  documents  on 08.10.2010 . At different  point of time  the opp.parties  directed the   complainant  to  submit  different  documents which were submitted by the  complainant. Only on 22.03.2013  the opp.parties  asked  the complainant   to  give his comment. At last on 16.04.2013  the  opp.parties informed the complainant  that they have repudiated  his  claim  .Hence the  case.

3.        In  pursuance  of notices  issued to the opp.parties they entered  their   appearance through  their  advocate and  only on 06.05.2014  the Divisional Manager, Angul  Division office  filed the  written statement on behalf of the opp.parties. The case of the  opp.parties   is that the  claim  is  not maintainable in the eye of law. The  complainant  is not  a consumer   under  C.P.Act. The  claim is  bad for  non-joinder and  miss- joinder  of  necessary parties. Admittedly the  complainant   insured his  vehicle  under the  opp.parties a policy was issued in his favour. The contents  of Paragraph 1 & 2  of the  complaint petition are  admitted. It   reveals  from the  documents  i.e  police paper and  complaint petition that the  incident  took place  on 08.04.2010  and  F.I.R was  lodged   on 18.04.2010 . The  complainant  informed  about the  occurrence to the opp.parties  on 12.04.2010  which  was in violation of the   conditions of   the  policy. The  complainant  had engaged the  driver  without  verifying  his  driving  licence  and  details   about  him. This    also violates  the terms and  conditions of the  policy. It is clear  from the  statement  of Iswar Ch. Sahu and Asis  Biswal  before the  police  recorded U/s. 161 Cr PC that the complainant engaged the  driver on 07.04.2010. As this is  a  case of  breach of  trust U/s. 408 IPC, the  claim of the  complainant  under the  policy " theft"  is  not  covered under the  policy. The  complainant has  not  taken  reasonable  steps to  safe guard the  vehicle. The   complainant   violates the  conditions No.1  of the  policy as he has  not  informed the opp.parties- insurer  and  police  immediately. Due to  such late information the  company  people  and the police could  not  able  to  search the  vehicle immediately  after the  occurrence. Due to  such  violation of the  conditions of the policy  the opp.parties  repudiated  the  claim of  the complainant  with  due  application of  mind  and  verifying the  relevant documents. There is neither  harassment  of the  complainant nor  there is  deficiency in service. The  allegations made in the  complaint petition are false  and the prayer  of the  complainant  be rejected.  

4.         Admittedly  the truck bearing Regd.No. OR-05-AC-8721 has been registered in the name of Jagannath Roadways  on 17.07.2008. It is alleged that on 09.04.2010 when the said vehicle was  proceeding towards Paradeep  from Talcher  being loaded with coal it did not reach its destination .The  complainant  could  not  able to  trace out after consistence  search , for which  on 12.04.210 the said fact of missing of the  vehicle was reported to the opp.party No.1  a written letter. Thereafter the fact of  missing of the  vehicle   was reported to the IIC colliery police station.  A case was registered  against the   driver of the  vehicle  namely Ajay Ku. Sahoo U/s. 408 IPC.    in the  court of  the learned SDJM,Talcher and  after due  investigation  charge sheet was submitted against the accused. The  opp.parties after receipt of the letter from the  complainant entered the  claim bearing No. 163800/31/10/639000007  and requested  the  complainant to submit the  police record in  connection  with the case. At different  point of times the opp.parties  asked the  complainant to submit  different documents  and the   complainant  complied the  same. Lastly  on 16.04.2013 the  opp.parties  arbitrarily and illegally repudiated  the claim of the  complainant  through a letter.   Hence the  complainant  has  prayed to  direct the opp.parties to settle the   claim  for  the  theft of the  vehicle and  to direct the opp.parties to pay  Rs. 50,000.00 towards cost of  litigation , mental  agony and harassment.

5.         It is  clear  from  letter dtd. 22.03.2013  issued by the opp.parties’ company    to the  complainant  that the  complainant is not  entitled for the  claim as he   has  not   informed  about the  loss of the  vehicle  to the opp.parties  and the  police “ immediately”. The  said  act of the  complainant is  violation of Clause-1. The  complainant also  violated Clause-5 of the  policy as he has  not taken all reasonable steps  to safeguard  the  vehicle  from  loss. On the  aforesaid   premises the opp.parties  repudiated  the claim.

6.         It is  to be seen whether the  complainant  is entitled to the   claim. Admittedly  the  complainant has  insured  the  vehicle  bearing Regd. OR-05-AC-8721 vide policy No.163800/31/09/6300001870. It started  its  journey  from Talcher to Paradeep  being  loaded with  coal on 09.04.2010  . It  is also clear  from the materials on record  that  one Niranjan Dash had submitted written report  before the Officer-in-charge of Colliery police Station, Talcher  on 18.04.2010  at 10.30AM  on  behalf of the  complainant and  the  case was  registered  U/s. 408   IPC against the  driver  of the insured  vehicle. It is  further  clear from  the  case record that  on 12.04.2010  a written information was  given to the opp.parties by  the  complainant. Admittedly there  is  near  about eight days delay  in  lodging FIR  by the  complainant and  two days  delay  in  informing  the opp.parties. The Learned  counsel for the opp.parties relied  on  the  decision reported in III  (2003) CPJ 77 (NC)   in the  case of Devendra Singh Vrs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd and others . First Appeal No. 321 of 2005  in New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vrs. Trilochan Jane and  submitted that  due  to such  delay  the  complainant is not  entitled to  any relief. He has also relied  on the decisions of  Pawazn Kumar Vrs. Shri Ram General Insurance , decided by  the Hon’ble NCDRC   on    19.10.2015  and Hon’ble Supreme Court   in United India Co.Ltd Vrs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal  decided  on 24.09.2004  and  Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. & another Vrs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd.  decided  on 01.04.2009 and  submitted that the  insurance  policy  between the  insurer and the insured  represents  a   contract  between the  parties. Since the  insured  under -takes  to  compensate the loss suffered by the insured  on account of  risk covered  by the  insurance policy, the  terms of the  agreement have to be  strictly construed to determine the  extent  of  liability of the  insurer. The insured  can not claim anything  more than  what is covered by the  insurance  policy.

            He  further  submitted that the  insurance   policy of the insured vehicle covered  theft U/s. 379 IPC and  present  case  is  a  case of  Breach of Trust i.e U/s. 408 IPC  .It is  further  argued  that the complainant has not taken  sufficient  precaution for the  safety  of the vehicle by  entrusting  the same  by  a driver without inquiry.

7.         On the  other hand  the learned counsel for the opp.parties relied on a  case namely Vikash  Behl  Vrs United India Insurance Company  decided on 30.03.3017 by the Hon,ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh , Omprakash  Vrs. Reliance  General Insurance  and  Another passed  in  Civil Appeal No. 15611 of 2017 dtd. 10.4.2017  and Jain  Construction Company Vrs. Oriental Insurance Company  Ltd & another in Civil  Appeal No. 1069 of 2022 dtd. 11.02.2022 .According  to  him it is a common knowledge  that  a  person who lost his  vehicle  may not  straight  way  go  to  the insurance company to  claim compensation. At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle. It is  true  that  the owner  has to intimate the  insurer immediately  after  the  theft of the  vehicle. However  this  condition should  not  bar   settlement of genuine claims   particularly  when the delay  in intimation or   submission of  documents  is  due to   unavoidable  circumstances. Rejection  of the claims on  purely technical  grounds  in a mechanical  manner  will result  in  loss  of confidence  of policy holders in  the  insurance industry. If the reason  for delay  in making  a claim is  satisfactorily  explained  , such a claim cannot  be  rejected on the  ground  of delay. It is   also  necessary  to state here that  it  would not be fair and  reasonable  to reject genuine claims  which had already  been verified and  found to be correct by the investigator. The condition regarding the delay shall not be  a shelter  to repudiate the  insurance  claims  which have  been otherwise proved  to be  genuine . It  need  to emphasise  that the  Consumer Protection  Act aims   at  providing  better  protection    of the  interest  of  consumers. It is  a beneficial legislation that  deserves  liberal  construction. This  laudable   object should  not be  forgotten while  considering the  claims  made under  the Act.

8.         From the  decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court  in Civil Appeal No. 1069   of 2022  (SUPRA). The  Hon’ble Apex Court has  held that :-

“ the  contract  is to be  interpreted according  to the  context  involved    in the  contract. The contract  we  are  interpreting  is  a commercial vehicle  package policy.There  is  no gainsaying  that  in a  contract, the  bargaining  power  is  usually at equal footing. In this regard, the  joint  intention  of the   parties is taken into  consideration for  interpretation   of  a contract. However, in  most standard form contracts, that  is  not  so. In this regard, the court in such circumstances would  consider  the application of the rule of  contract  proferentem, when ambiguity  exists and  an  interpretation of the  contract  is  preferred which  favours  the party with lesser bargaining  power”.

9.         The  copy of the FIR is available  in the  case record. It has been clearly  mentioned in the said FIR that  on 08.04.2010 the  insured  vehicle  was loaded with coal from Hingula Colliery and as the  road was jammed only on 09.04.2010 at 10 A.M  it left Handidhua Chawak,Talcher towards  Paradeep. It further appears that the  informant  inquired  about    the arrival of the vehicle  and  came to know that  the vehicle did not  reach  the destination. It is  also mentioned in the FIR that suspecting  of break-down  on the way  to Paradeep, the complainant searched  but in vain. After  thorough  search the complainant  could  not  trace  the vehicle and the  driver , for which FIR was lodged  only on  18.04.2010 . The  complainant has  explained the delay in lodging FIR satisfactory. As the owner of the  vehicle  before submitting  a written report  to the police  when  the  driver   is  not  traceable it is his  duty  to take  all the attempts to  trace  the  vehicle  first and  thereafter  to  report  it  to the police. So the delay in lodging FIR  on 18.04.2010 and  information to the opp.parties  on 12.04.2010  is  a reasonable delay which has been satisfactorily explained by the  complainant.

10.       From the  documents  relied on  by the  complainant and  opp.parties it  is clear that  before  the  appointment  of the  driver Ajay Ku.Sahoo  in the  insured vehicle    the  complainant  inquired  about the driver  from his old  driver Ishwar Ch.Sahoo  and  basing  on  his  recommendation the  complainant  had engaged the  driver Ajay Ku.Sahoo .  So there is  no negligence on the part of the complainant to engage  Ajay Ku.Sahoo as  a driver in the  insured vehicle.

11.       Admittedly  police has registered  a case  U/s. 408 IPC against the  driver of the  insured  vehicle. It is vehemently  argued  by the   learned  counsel for the opp.parties that  theft not Breach of Trust  is covered in the  policy .The  definition  of theft is available  U/s. 378  IPC. Illustration (d) to Section- 378  specifically  provides that :-

“ A  being Z’s servant  and  entrusted by Z  with  the  care  of  Z’s  plate  dishonestly runs  away  with the  plate   without Z’s  consent. A has  committed theft”.

From the  aforesaid illustration it is very  much clear that the  offence committed   by the  driver of the insured  vehicle is  coming   under theft. The registration of the case by the police U/s. 408 IPC will  not  make  any difference regarding the  claim  of the  complainant.

12.       So after discussing the  facts and documents   placed   before this Commission  by  both the parties  we are  constrained  to hold that the  complainant  is  entitled for the reliefs claimed.

13.       Hence  ordered :-

: O R D E R :

            The opp.parties  are  directed to settle the claim of the complainant  for the  theft of the  vehicle   bearing Regd. No. OR-05-AC-8721  and  to pay  Rs. 20,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Thousand)only  as  compensation towards cost of  litigation and Rs.30,000.00 (rupees Thirty Thousand) only   towards mental  agony and  harassment  to the  complainant. The opp.parties are further directed to  pay  interest  on the  settled amount @9% per annum from the  date  of filing of the  complaint i.e  25.05.2013 till payment  is made. Comply the    said order by the opp. parties  within one  month  from the date  of receipt of this  order from this  Commission, failing  which they have  to  pay interest @ 18 % per annum  till the   ordered  amount  is paid.

            The  case  is disposed of accordingly with contest.