BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case No  : 1258 of 2009

Date   of   Institution :    02.09.2009

Date  of    Decision   :    22.01.2010

Mrs.Savita Tiwari wife of Sh.B.N.Tiwari, Resident of Flat No.33, GHS 38, Sector  20,  Panchkula.

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

National Insurance Company Limited, SCO Nos.85-86, First Floor, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

.…..Opposite Party

CORAM:    SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL       PRESIDENT

                DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL              MEMBER

Argued by:        Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Rajesh Verma, Adv. for OP.

PER SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

                The car of the complainant bearing Regd. No.HR-03-F-8005, duly insured with OP Company for Rs.2,45,000/-, was taken by his driver namely Kiran Jain on 14.8.2008 for getting the puncture repair done but he did not return thereafter.  The matter was reported to the Police and FIR was lodged vide Ann.C-1.  The theft of the car was also reported to the OP Insurance Company vide Ann.C-3.  All the necessary documents including NCRB Report as well as Untraced Report from SHO, P.S. Sector 31, Chandigarh were furnished to the OP Company and thereafter a claim was lodged with them.  However, the OP Company illegally and arbitrarily repudiated the claim vide letter dated 23.6.2009 (Ann.C-6) on the grounds that the contents of the FIR and untraceable Report made the claim not payable inasmuch as the case was neither of theft or burglary or malicious act.   Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above repudiation as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, due to which the complainant had to suffer great mental tension, physical harassment and monetary loss.

2]             OP filed reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case.  It is submitted that the claim of the complainant was got investigated by Surveyor N.K.Sehgal from where it revealed that FIR No.165, dated 15.5.2008 was registered only under Section 406 of IPC for breach of trust and not an incident of theft and the case was sent untraced on 22.10.2008.  it is stated that Section 379 IPC has mistakenly been mentioned by the Police vide Ann.R-2.  It is also stated that since it was not a case of theft or burglary or malicious act, so the claim of the complainant was not payable as it did not fall within the purview and ambit of the policy and therefore, it was rightly repudiated.  Rest of the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

5]             The Learned Counsel for the OP has argued that the vehicle was handed over by the complainant to his driver who ran away with the same and thereafter the complainant lodged FIR Annexure C-1 under section 406 IPC against the said driver.  It is therefore neither a theft nor burglary or a malicious act for which the compensation could be paid.  The Learned Counsel referred to Annexure C-6, which is the letter of repudiation sent by the OP to the complainant in this respect. We however, do not find any merit in this argument.  The matter has since been settled by the Hon`ble National Commission in case of “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Ravi Kant Gopalka, 2007(3)CLT 345”. In that case also the driver had taken away the vehicle for servicing but did not come back.  It was held that the illustration (d) to section 378 IPC clearly stipulates that the offence would be that of theft and the OP therefore cannot wriggle out of their liability to pay compensation.  It is unfortunate that even inspite of the law being clear on the subject, the OPs are repudiating the claims and harassing the consumers.

6]             Annexure C-2 is the policy of insurance showing that the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.2,28,000/-, with electrical accessories worth Rs.10,000/- and Rs.6,000/- making it a total of Rs.2,44,000/-.  The OPs therefore are liable to pay the said amount to the complainant.

7]             In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint succeeds. The same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,44,000/- alongwith interest @8% p.a. with effect from the date of repudiation i.e. 23.06.09(Annexure C-6) till the amount is actually paid to the complainant alongwith litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-.  If the amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, the OPs would be liable to pay the above said amount alongwith penal interest @12% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 02.09.09, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.

8]             Needless to mention that the OPs would be free to recover the amount of interest and costs from the official who did not make the payment of compensation to the complainant, of course after giving him/them an opportunity of being heard.

          Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.