ORDER

07.06.2017

Upendra Jha Member(M).

                           This appeal is against the order dated 13.12.2004 passed by the District Forum, Sitamarhi  in complaint case no. 31 of 2013 by which the  complaint  has been dismissed with observation to produce tax taken from the Respondent for settlement of the claim.

 2.                   Brief facts of this case is that the complainant purchased  a Tata Motor Truck, registered vide no. BR- 06G/ 2604 which was being used for transporting  Building materials of his business. On the night of  03.05.2010 when the Truck was parked near the house of  the appellant, it was stolen  by some miscreants. F.I.R was lodged on 09.05.2010. The Police submitted final form stating  that the theft  was true which was accepted by the C.J.M, Sitamarhi. The complainant filed claim before the Insurance Company with relevant documents but it was repudiated. The complainant filed  a complaint before the District Forum, Sitamarhi. The opposite party – Respondent contested the case. The District Forum passed the impugned order against which this appeal is preferred.

3.                    Respective written notes of arguments have been filed by the parties. Heard.

4.             The District Forum  there was no finding deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party- respondent dismissed the complaint.

5.        The counsel for the appellant submits that the District Forum without considering the legal  aspects has dismissed the  complaint  on  technical ground. The  truck was being used by the appellant for self employment and it was not for Commercial use. The Insurance Company as well as the District Forum has wrongly dismissed the claim on a very technical ground. The claim ought to had  been settled  on non-standard basis as there was violation of terms of the policy  as held by the National Commission  in the case of National Insurance company Vs. Nitn Khandel  wal  reported  in 2008 11SCC 259 order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable. It is fit to be set aside. The appeal be allowed.

6.        The counsel for the  respondent submits that the complainant did not produce Tax Token  of the Truck in question mentioning  the deposit of  road Tax. Hence, the  Insurance company order to repudiate the  claim  is proper and justified. The District Forum has also passed the justified order to dismiss the claim. Hence. The appeal  be dismissed. 

7.                    Having considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of  both parties  and  on perused of the order passed by  the District Forum  it appears that the insured truck of the appellant was stolen on the night  of 08.05.2010 when it was parked in the premises of the complainant. It was insured for Rs. 7,00,000/-. F.I.R was lodged,  police submitted the final form stating  that the theft was true but no clue. This was accepted by the C.J.M.  The insurance Company repudiated the claim only on the ground that Tax Token of the said Truck was not submitted. The District Forum has  also dismissed the complainant on the same ground. But it is not proper.  In case of violation of terms of the policy it ought to have been settled on  non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the Insurance amount as held  by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Nitin Khandel wal reported in 2008 supreme  court cases 159. The appellant is entitled for that  hence the District Forum  order is set aside  end  the appeal is allowed. The respondent Insurance company is directed to pay the appellant Rs. 7,00,000/- X 0.75 = Rs. 5,25,000/- with compensation of Rs, 10,000/- and litigation cost Rs. 5000/- within two monthly form the receipt  of this order failing which 10% interest will be payable.

            The appeal is partly allowed.

S.K. Sinha                              Renu Sinha                                         Upendra Jha

President                                   Member(F)                                         Member(M)

Mukund