PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

          Complainant Raj Singh purchased HIVA Dumper of Tata Make in the year 2007.  Insurance policy was obtained from M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., OP for the period from

26.02.2009 to 25.02.2010.  The petitioner rented out his vehicle to a Contractor Sh. Jitender Singh for removal of soil digging and transportation in the area near Jhajjar(Haryana).  The said contractor Jitender Singh received the vehicle from the complainant from his office situated in Jamalpur, Gurgaon (Haryana). 

2.          Unfortunately, the said vehicle was stolen on 05.07.2009 from the Nizampur Road, Hero Honda Chowk, Narnaul, Haryana.  Contractor of this vehicle informed the complainant about the theft on 25.07.2009.   The petitioner also informed the police, Gurgaon at 5-30 P.M. of 05.07.2009 about the theft of his vehicle.  The complainant lodged FIR No. 224 under section 406/379 IPC.  It was registered on 26.07.2009 wherein it is alleged that accused contractor Sh. Jitender Singh was the accused.  Subsequnently Jitender Singh was declared Proclaimed Offender by the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Narnaul and Report regarding not traceable was filed before the Court.  

3.      The complainant filed his claim before the agent Mukesh Singh of the OP Company on 08.07.2009.  The OPs/respondents repudiated his claim on 18.1.2011 on the ground that the policy does

not cover the hiring risk including driving of hirer’s driver and indemnity to hirer as no such package policy by paying additional premium was obtained by the Owner petitioner and there was a delay in informing of 23 days to the Insurance Policy.

4.          Ultimately, the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum, Gurgaon on 10.06.2011/14.06.2011 wherein claim of Rs. 13,20,000/- with interest  @ 24% per annum from the date of theft  and compensation of Rs. 70,000/- for transportation, harassment, mental agony suffered by the complainant, was claimed.  On 17.10.2012 , the District Forum dismissed the complaint while placing reliance on “Om Prakash Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd. III (2012) CPJ 59 (NC)”.  The appeal was preferred before the State Commission, which also dismissed the appeal on the ground that the policy does not cover the hiring risk including driving of hirer’s driver and indemnity to hirer as no such package policy by paying additional premium was obtained.

5.      We have heard the counsel for the complainant.  He has invited our attention towards the report written to SHO on 05.07.2009.  This is not the authenticated report.  The endorsement made by the SHO or any other police official does not appear on that.  It is a true copy certified by Sh. S.K. Shrivastava, the counsel for the complainant himself.  The endorsement of the report does seem to be of their own.

6.      The complainant hems and haws and comes out on both sides of the question. In the synopsis, the petitioner has mentioned that Jitender Singh, Contractor of his vehicle informed him about the theft on 25.07.2009.  It clearly means that the complainant was not aware that his vehicle had been stolen on 05.07.2009.  It is difficult to fathom how he was able to lodge FIR on 05.07.2009.  Counsel for the petitioner could not explain about it.  No actual FIR saw the light of the day.  Both these sides are poles apart and heterogeneous. 

7.          Secondly, the Insurance Company was informed about the theft after the lapse of 23 days.  The information to the company was given after an inordinate delay.  No expression is forthcoming why the delay was caused.  It is the duty of every insured to inform the insurance company immediately so that it may appoint its own investigator and come to know whether the complaint filed by the complainant is true or false.  Whether they can arrest the accused immediately or the

delay has allowed accused to run away or dispose of the vehicle to a scrap dealer.

7.          Lastly, the claim of the petitioner was rightly repudiated on the ground that the policy does not cover the hiring risk including driving of hirer’s driver and indemnity to hirer as no such package policy by paying additional premium was obtained by the Owner complainant.

8.      The petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.