State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shrawan Singh Shekhawat vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 19 November, 2025
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT NEW DELHI
NC/MA/515/2025
(RESTORATION)
WITH
NC/IA/13010/2025
(CONDONATION OF DELAY)
IN
NC/RP/1876/2024
(From the Order dated 04.04.2024 in FA No. 468/2023 of the
Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)
Shrawan Singh Shekhawat ... Petitioner
Versus
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. ... Respondents
NC/MA/516/2025
(RESTORATION)
WITH
NC/IA/13019/2025
(CONDONATION OF DELAY)
IN
NC/RP/1875/2024
(From the Order dated 04.04.2024 in FA No. 467/2023 of the
Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)
Shrawan Singh Shekhawat ... Petitioner
Versus
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. ... Respondents
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER
For Applicant / Petitioner : Mr. S.N. Bohra, Advocate
Dated: 19.11.2025
ORDER
NC/RP/1875_1876_2024 Page | 1 M.A. No. 515/2025 in R.P. No. 1876/2024 M.A. No. 516/2025 in R.P. No. 1875/2024
1. These two applications have been moved in these two revision petitions praying for recall of the order dated 24.09.2025, whereby the same were dismissed for want of prosecution.
2. We have perused the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Bohra who has urged that due to the mistake on the part of the counsel, the case went unattended and therefore the order be recalled and the case be restored and heard on merits. The applications are supported by the affidavit of the learned counsel himself.
3. We find sufficient justification in the cause pleaded in the applications. We therefore allow the same and recall the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by us dismissing the revision petitions and restore them to their original numbers. R.P. No. 1875/2024 & R.P. No. 1876/2024
4. These two revision petitions arise out of the orders passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan dated 04.04.2024 in F.A. No. 467/2023 and F.A. No. 468/2023, whereby the orders of the District Commission dated 28.08.2023 passed in CC No. 456/2017 and 455/2017 have been reversed and the complaints have been dismissed.
5. However, both the complaints are in respect of two different vehicles and two separate policies even though the petitioner - complainant is the same. The incidents are also separate and the facts giving rise to the claim NC/RP/1875_1876_2024 Page | 2 are slightly different. Nonetheless, the issue centres around as to whether the loss was caused on account of any malicious act or otherwise and as to whether keeping in view the nature of the policies, the claim could have been indemnified.
6. We therefore take up R.P. No. 1876/2024, where the petitioner complainant filed CC No. 455/2017 alleging that he was owner of Tanker no. RJ23 GA 5731 that was secured under a Carrier Legal Liability Policy, the tenure thereof was from 27.06.2014 to 26.06.2015. The policy also covered any loss during transit of diesel and petrol etc. that was to be transported through the said Tanker.
7. On 04.02.2015, when the Tanker was transporting 10000 litres of petrol and 14000 litres of diesel from Kota Depot to Jaipur in Rajasthan, then the driver of the said Tanker fell ill and he therefore parked the Tanker at a place known as Balapura where some other Tankers were also standing. When he woke up at 5.30am in the morning, the next day, he found that the Tanker was missing and consequently information was given to the police and an FIR was lodged on 05.02.2015 and an information was also sent to the Insurance Company.
8. The vehicle was found in an abandoned state on Chittorgarh Road by the police and was accordingly seized and taken into custody. The Insurance Company appointed Mr. B.K. Gupta as Surveyor and the loss was assessed. It was found that 2782 litres of diesel was short by the Surveyor and an approximate amount was calculated to the tune of Rs. 1,36,622/- instead of the actual value of the said diesel which was Rs. 1,41,603.80p. The claim was NC/RP/1875_1876_2024 Page | 3 lodged, but in the absence of any response a legal notice was given on 18.04.2017. On an information sought under the RTI Act, the complainant was informed that since the terms of the Carrier Legal Liability Policy did not contain any coverage of any such theft during transport, therefore the same was repudiated.
9. The complaint was filed and the Insurance Company in its response stated that the claim had already been repudiated on 24.07.2015 and the complaint had been filed 43 days beyond time. The Insurance Company also took a stand that the Tanker had been parked in the open at night containing diesel and petrol and was left without any security. The Tanker was unattended and therefore the complainant was completely negligent and had not taken any reasonable care to protect the vehicle, therefore the policy conditions had been violated. The vehicle was carrying hazardous petroleum products and the complainant nor his driver took care to comply with the Petroleum Act, 1934. The liability of such theft under the Carrier Legal Liability Policy was not covered and it was only for fire and accident that was indemnifiable.
10. The District Commission allowed the complaint on 28.08.2023 against which the Insurance Company went up in appeal in F.A. No. 468/2023. The State Commission analysed the reason given by the District Commission recording that there was a Carrier Legal Liability Policy and other than that there was also a Commercial Vehicle Package Policy that had different durations. However, under the Carrier Legal Liability Policy, it was only loss due to accident or fire which was indemnifiable whereas in the Commercial NC/RP/1875_1876_2024 Page | 4 Vehicle Package Policy, any loss caused to the vehicle was indemnifiable. The State Commission then perused the First Information Report dated 04.02.2015 and recorded the incident having occurred due to the vehicle parked carelessly by the driver that remained unattended and after the vehicle went missing, it was found in an abandoned state on Chittorgarh Road. The State Commission also perused the final report submitted by the police. The State Commission in paragraph 12 of the impugned order recorded that the vehicle had been left unprotected by the driver and even otherwise the terms of the policy indicated that if any diesel / petrol is stolen, then the claim is not indemnifiable. We entirely agree with the aforesaid conclusion drawn by the State Commission to the extent that the complainant was not entitled to any indemnification under the said policy, moreso when the criminal case seems to be not one of theft, but of criminal breach of trust. Even otherwise, the theft of the diesel in the given circumstances was not indemnifiable. We have also perused the policy schedule and a copy of the same has been filed as Annexure-4 to the revision petition. The same is extracted hereinunder:
NC/RP/1875_1876_2024 Page | 5 NC/RP/1875_1876_2024 Page | 6 NC/RP/1875_1876_2024 Page | 7
11. The conditions aforesaid therefore categorically exclude any such liability, in as much as, the coverage is subject to the said clauses. The finding recorded is clearly to the effect that the vehicle was left unprotected and unattended and therefore the conditions have been clearly violated. The State Commission was therefore justified in arriving at its conclusions. The repudiation was clearly made on the ground that theft of the diesel was not covered under the Carrier Legal Liability Policy apart from the violation of the other terms and conditions referred to above. In such circumstances, the conclusion drawn by the State Commission cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, the claim under the Carrier Legal Liability Policy has been rightly rejected.
12. The State Commission then went on to examine the Commercial Vehicle Package Policy, it was held by the State Commission that the complainant had not been able to prove as to the extent of the damage caused to the vehicle nor any evidence was available with regard to any damage caused except the theft of the diesel. In such circumstances, in the absence of any such loss claimed or proved, the same was also denied by the State Commission on the said ground. We do not find any error in the said conclusions drawn, consequently Revision Petition No. 1876/2024 is dismissed.
13. Coming to the R.P. No. 1875/2024, the facts are that the respondent complainant alleged that his Tanker No. RJ23 GA 5652 insured under a Carrier Legal Liability Policy, the duration whereof was from 02.05.2015 to 01.05.2016 was loaded with 24000 litres of petrol / diesel that was travelling NC/RP/1875_1876_2024 Page | 8 from HPCL, Bharatpur Depot to Hanumangarh, when on 10.02.2016 at about 7.30am, the complainant was informed by the driver that the vehicle near Dausa had drifted down the road and that he was retrieving the vehicle for moving forward. However, the telephone went off thereafter and the driver did not communicate. The complainant accordingly set out from Jaipur to Bharatpur and he found the vehicle standing abandoned about 6-7 kms from Dausa and the police was accordingly informed. It was also suspected that about 1000 litres of diesel had been stolen after breaking open the locks and the valves, but on further inspection by the HPCL Engineer, it was found that there was a shortage of 15060 litres of diesel.
14. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged and the criminal case is still pending whereas a claim was lodged with the Insurance Company for indemnification of Rs. 6,60,580.49p. The complainant was informed that the claim was not indemnifiable and according to the intimation dated 06.01.2017 since the loss had occurred on account of the act of the driver himself, the same was not covered under the policy and consequently, the claim was denied. Aggrieved, the respondent complainant filed CC No. 456/2017 and the District Commission found that having regard to the Surveyor's report tendered by Mr. Ashok Kumar Vijay and the facts of the case, the claim was indemnifiable.
15. The Insurance Company aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2023 filed an appeal urging that the chargesheet in the criminal case had been filed under section 407 IPC which was a criminal breach of trust and therefore it was not theft. Even otherwise, the claim could be indemnifiable under the Carrier Legal Liability Policy only if the loss was due to fire or accident. The NC/RP/1875_1876_2024 Page | 9 malicious act of the driver and the negligence was clearly established and therefore the conditions of the policy were clearly attracted and the claim was not indemnifiable. The State Commission reversed the order of the District Commission after noting that the vehicle had been separately covered under a Commercial Vehicle Package Policy. It was also observed that the driver of the Tanker Mr. Diwan Singh @ Pappu Gujar had been chargesheeted. The terms and conditions of the Carrier Legal Liability Policy and the Commercial Vehicle Package Policy terms and conditions were not interchangeable. Admittedly, the driver seems to have acted maliciously.
16. The Surveyor had however found that there was a loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 9,018/- that was covered under the Commercial Vehicle Package Policy. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- for costs was also awarded. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company was therefore partly allowed and the impugned order dated 28.08.2023 of the District Commission was accordingly partly modified by awarding Rs. 9,018/- with 9% interest and Rs. 10,000/- for compensation and Rs. 10,000/- for costs.
17. We have considered the submissions raised and we find that the State Commission has justifiably found the Carrier Legal Liability claim to be not admissible because of the clear facts of the case where the driver has been chargesheeted for criminal breach of trust. Such a coverage was not indemnifiable under the said policy, but so far as the claim of any damage to the vehicle under the Commercial Vehicle Package Policy is concerned, the NC/RP/1875_1876_2024 Page | 10 same has been partly allowed. We do not find any error in the conclusions so drawn by the State Commission.
18. The revision petition therefore does not raise any issue of material irregularity or illegality so as to warrant any interference. The Revision Petition no. 1875/2024 is also dismissed.
19. Consequently, both the Revision Petitions are consigned.
.............................................
(A.P. SAHI, J) PRESIDENT .............................................
(BHARATKUMAR PANDYA)
MEMBER
Pramod/Vandana/Court-1/4-5
NC/RP/1875_1876_2024 Page | 11