National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Pawan Kumar vs Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. ... on 19 October, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1030 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 12/11/2013 in Appeal No. 679/2013 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. PAWAN KUMAR S/O LATE KASTURI LAL, R/O HOUSE NO-140 PATTI AFGAN,ARJUN NAGAR, KAITHAL HARYANA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR.ASHRAF ALI,BRANCH MANAGER, SCO NO-178, FIRST FLOOR, SECTOR -38C, CHANDIGARH 2. SHARI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. E/8 EPIP , RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : MS. SAVITA DHANDA For the Respondent : MR. NAVNEET KUMAR MR. NAVNEET KUMAR
Dated : 19 Oct 2015 ORDER
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 679 of 2013 - Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Pawan Kumar by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Petitioner owner of truck HR 64 4309 insured by OP/respondent for a period of one year from 2.12.2010 to 1.12.2011 was taken away by complainant's driver Sukhdev Singh and conductor Suresh on 4.12.2010 to Israna from Kaithal and the same went missing from that date. FIR was lodged on 9.12.2010 and intimation to OP was given on 17.12.2010. Claim submitted by complainant was repudiated by OP. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction as insurance policy was issued from Jaipur. It was further submitted that FIR was lodged after 5 days under Section 407 IPC and intimation to OP was given after 13 days. On account of delayed report and intimation, claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.11,90,000/-. Appeal filed by OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of proof of theft of truck, learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. It is admitted case of the parties that on 4.12.2011, truck was taken by complainant's driver and conductor from Kaithal to Israna which went missing and FIR was lodged on 9.12.2010 under Section 407 IPC against driver and conductor and intimation to OP was given on 17.12.2010.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in I (2013) CPJ 212 (NC) - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Durga Carriers Pvt. Ltd. in which claim allowed by Fora below regarding theft of vehicle was upheld as delay occurred in lodging FIR due to reluctance of Police in accepting FIR. Facts of aforesaid case are not applicable to the case in hand because in this case FIR was registered promptly by the Police authorities as alleged by complainant under Section 407 IPC. There was delay in lodging FIR by complainant himself and that too FIR was lodged under Section 407 IPC.
7. On account of delay of 5 days in lodging FIR and on account of delay of 13 days in intimation to Insurance Co., claim was rightly repudiated by OP on account of violation of terms and conditions of policy. This Commission in F.A. No. 321 of 2005 - New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane, decided on 9.12.2009 dismissed complaint on the ground of delay of 2 days in lodging FIR and delay of 9 days in intimation to Insurance Company.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that delay occurred due to no response from driver and conductor from the place where truck was sent. This argument is devoid of force because in FIR it has specifically been mentioned that on 4.12.2010 at 7 p.m. he had talked with driver Sukhdev Singh, but at 9 p.m. and on next day driver's phone was switched of and truck did not reach back to Kaithal. It was further mentioned that on inquiry from Cement plant at Israna, he came to know that truck did not reach in the night for loading cement. In such circumstances, it becomes clear that complainant came to know about hiding truck by driver on the same day, but he lodged report after 5 days which is in violation of terms and conditions of policy. Distance of Kaithal to Israna is only 88 kms. and in such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that complainant came to know about alleged incident after 5 days.
9. Not only this, FIR was lodged under Section 407 IPC which is not covered under the insurance policy because insurance policy was taken with coverage of theft whereas Section 407 pertains to criminal breach of trust and does not fall within purview of theft.
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer under Section 392/34 against Shyam and Ravinder but on the basis of this charge sheet it cannot be inferred that vehicle was snatched by culprits from driver and conductor of truck because no such report was lodged by driver and conductor or owner of the truck immediately after the incident.
11. In the light of above discussion, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER