National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Khem Chand Sapra vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 27 February, 2002
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. This Revision Petition arises out of the order passed by the State Commission setting aside the order of the District Forum which had allowed the complaint.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Complainant had a truck which was insured with the Respondent Company. This truck was stolen on 24.11.89. The driver of the truck lodged a complaint about this incident with the police. A criminal case has been registered under Sections 379/364 of IPC against four persons, including the first informer i.e. the driver of the truck being one of them. The Respondent Company kept writing to the Petitioner to subject some documents and on not getting replies to this letter and subsequent reminders, the Respondent Company wrote to the Petitioner of this being a case of "No claim". On some representation, the Respondent Insurance Company agreed to re-open the case and informed the same to the Petitioner who instead of waiting for the out-come of re-opened case, moved the District Forum for relief who after hearing both the parties directed Respondent Company to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- along with interest 12% from the date of filing of the case and cost of Rs. 500/-. On filing appeal by the Respondent Company, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum, hence this revision petition.
3. It is argued by the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the State Commission has erred in setting aside the order of the District Forum. There is no dispute that the truck was stolen and theft is covered by the policy, hence the Petitioner needs to be indemnified as per terms of the policy. District Forum had passed a well reasoned order. On the other hand, it was argued by the ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company that we kept asking for the documents of the truck and of the driver like the driving licence etc. The very fact that along with 379 IPC the accused along with the driver of truck have also been charged under Section 364 IPC, hence it is not proved that the truck was stolen. Any loss caused by any criminal breach of trust is not covered by the terms of the policy.
4. We have seen the material on record and heard the arguments. Material shows that truck is lost. What the policy covers is theft but the police after investigation has framed charges under Sections 379/364 of IPC against four persons including the driver of the truck, Nathu Singh.
5. In our view the State Commission went wrong on account of an erroneous reading of Section 364 of IPC as if this section relates to criminal breach of trust and thus arriving at the conclusion this is not a case of theft as per terms of policy. Facts are different. Section 364 of IPC deals with kidnapping or abducting in order to murder. There is no dispute that truck was stolen. This Commission has already held in the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Rohit Kumar Gupta (1994 CPJ 196 NC) as under:-
"Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -- Section 14(1)(d) -- "Insurance" -- "Car-Compensation" -- Complainant had insured his Co. -- Driver disappeared with the car -- Claim lodged -- Insurance Co. repudiated the claim -- Whether it is a case of theft and covers the risk. (Yes). This Commission while upholding the claim of the Complainant in the above case clearly states:-
"Before this Commission also, the appellant reiterated its plea that the instant car cannot be regarded as one of loss of the car by theft and hence the Insurance Company is not liable for the claim as per the terms of the policy.
We see no force at all in this contention. What would constitute the offence of theft is to be seen from the language used in the provision of Section 379 of IPC. Illustration-D to that Section clearly and directly covers the contingency which has occurred in the present case, namely, the person who had been entrusted with an article or an item of goods dishonestly running away with the said article. Such being the legal position, we are of opinion that the insurance company should not have adopted such an attitude at all, but should have paid up the money covered by the insurance policy to the respondent. Inasmuch as that was not done, the State Commission rightly directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant the amount for which the car had been insured, namely, Rs. 1 lakh."
6. In our view this was a clear case of theft as defined in Section 379 of IPC. Related Section 364 of IPC is not in dispute before us. The case of theft emerges clearly before us and in view of our order on similar case cited above, we are of the view that the State Commission erred in its appreciation of law and facts of this case, hence the order of the State Commission is set aside and order of the District Forum restored with the modification that amount awarded be given to the Petitioner along with rate of interest @ 12% p.a., effective from the date of complaint before the District Forum till the time of payment which is fixed at eight weeks from the date of order. No costs.