Delhi District Court
Pramod Gupta vs The Oriental Insurance Company on 4 August, 2023
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH PANDIT, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE09, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 11695/16
Pramod Gupta
Proprietor of M/s Super LPG Carrier,
3/3, Jaidev Park, East Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi. ...... Plaintiff
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited.
Divisional Office No. 12
7678, Singh Sabha Road,
Sabzi Mandi, Delhi110007 ..... Defendant
Date of institution : 10.03.2014
Received by this court : 03.03.2021
Date when order reserved : 01.08.2023
Date of Judgment : 04.08.2023
JUDGMENT
1 By this judgment, I will dispose of suit for recovery of Rs.4,94,650/ filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2 The brief facts of the case as per plaintiff are that plaintiff is the proprietor of M/s Super LPG Carrier and authorized Mr. Ali Mam Hassan, account of the firm to represent him in the present case.
CS NO.11695/16 Pramod Gupta The Oriental Insurance Page 1/10 23 Plaintiff purchased an Insurance Policy named Carrier Legal Liability bearing no.271500/48/2013/663 from the defendant for its carrier having a registration no. HR635212 (hereinafter called Truck) on 15.05.2012 for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs by paying a premium of Rs.3,750/.
4 On 29.11.2012, the abovesaid vehicle was stolen from the Mathura Refinery. An FIR no. 416/12 u/sec.407 IPC dated 06.12.2012 PS Refinery Mathura was registered. Vehicle was found on 05.12.2012. It was short of 6 ton and 200 kgs of LPG.
5 Matter was reported to the defendant vide letter dated 17.12.2012. However, in response by defendant vide letter dated 02.01.2013, rejected the claim of Rs.4,19,194/.
6 Legal demand notice dated 05.04.2013 was sent to the defendant but without any effect. Thereafter this suit is filed by plaintiff seeking Rs.4,19,194/ as principal amount and Rs.75,456/ as interest @ 18% per annum totaling Rs.4,94,650/. Plaintiff has also sought pendentlite and future interest @18% per annum.
CS NO.11695/16 Pramod Gupta The Oriental Insurance Page 2/10 37 In the written statement filed by the defendant, it is stated that plaintiff has reported the matter on 17.12.2012. However, the alleged loss took place on 29.11.2012 and due to the delay in reporting the claim was repudiated as per the terms and conditions of the contract. The policy was not disputed. Rest of the contents were denied.
8 In replication, the plaintiff reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint and denied those of written statement.
9 On 18.12.2015, from the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed: 1 Whether the plaintiff had not complied with the condition no. 13 of the policy, if so, its effect?
2 Whether there is any breach of any terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties?
3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the compensation plaint?
4 Relief?
10 To prove its case, plaintiff examined PW1 Sh. Ali Mam Hassan, attorney of plaintiff. He tendered his examination in chief by way of Ex.PW1/A. He relied on following documents: CS NO.11695/16 Pramod Gupta The Oriental Insurance Page 3/10 4 Sr.no. Document/Particulars Exhibit(s)
1. Special Power of Attorney Ex.PW1/1
2. Copy of Insurance Policy Ex.PW1/2
3. Registration certificate of vehicle Ex.PW1/3 4. Copy of FIR Ex.PW1/4
5. Bill for loss of Gas Ex.PW1/5
6. Letter written by IOCL to plaintiff Ex.PW1/6
7. Letter dated 17.12.2012 Ex.PW1/7 8. Claim form Ex.PW1/8
9. Letter dated 02.01.2013 Ex.PW1/9 10. Legal notice Ex.PW1/10 11. Postal receipt Ex.PW1/11 12. AD Card Ex.PW1/12 11 To rebut the case of the plaintiff and to prove its own case, defendant examined DW1 Sh. Ved Prakash, Assistant Manager. He tendered his examination in chief by way of Ex.DW1/A. He relied on following documents: Sr.no. Document/Particulars Exhibit(s) pages 1. Policy(similar document is already Mark A 2 exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 by plaintiff)
2. Copy of letter dated 02.01.2023(which is Ex.PW1/9 1 mentioned as Ex.DW1/2 in the affidavit is deexhibited being already exhibited)
3. Copy of letter dated 17.12.2012(which is Ex.PW1/7 1 mentioned as Ex.DW1/3 in the affidavit is deexhibited being already exhibited) CS NO.11695/16 Pramod Gupta The Oriental Insurance Page 4/10 5 12 After the closure of evidence, final arguments were heard.
13 I have gone through the pleadings of the case, material on record, evidence, written submissions and submissions forwarded by Ld. Counsels for parties.
14 Following are the admitted/undisputed facts:
(i) The vehicle bearing no. HR635212 was insured by the defendant through policy named Carrier Legal Liability bearing no.271500/48/2013/663.
(ii) The vehicle was stolen on 29.11.2012 and to that effect an FIR no. 416/12 u/sec.407 IPC dated 06.12.2012 PS Refinery Mathura was registered.
(iii) The vehicle was stolen by the driver himself who was also got apprehended by the police in the above said FIR.
15 My issue wise opinion is as follows: ISSUE NO.1 & 2 Issue no. 1 Whether the plaintiff had not complied with condition on.3 of the policy, if so, its effect.
Issue no. 2 Whether there is any breach of any terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties.
16 Following is the chronology of events which took place: CS NO.11695/16 Pramod Gupta The Oriental Insurance Page 5/10 6
(i) On 29.11.2012, the Truck was got stolen from Mathura Refinery UP.
(ii) It was found on 05.12.2012.
(iii) On 06.12.2012, FIR (Ex.PW1/4) u/sec.407 IPC was got registered on 06.12.2012 as there was shortage of LPG of about 6200 kgs.
(iv) On 17.12.2012, plaintiff wrote a letter Ex.PW1/7 to the defendant about the incident and loss of LPG.
(v) Defendant replied back vide letter dated 02.01.2013 Ex.PW1/9 stating that due to late intimation of claim, they are not in position to entertain the said claim.
(vi) After about one month, the culprit i.e. driver was apprehended for the alleged theft of LPG by the police.
(vii) Thereafter, plaintiff gave legal notice dated 05.04.2013 Ex.PW1/10.
17 In this case, it is the grievance of the plaintiff that without any cogent reason, the defendant had not entered into the process of determination of claim of the plaintiff. It is stated that without any basis, they have outrightly taken a decision of not entering into the claim of plaintiff on a flimsy ground that the plaintiff reported the claim after a delay. It is stated that the delay was caused due to the fact that the the claim was not on account of theft of the vehicle but on account of loss of LPG which was determined only when the vehicle was found. It is stated that the same was reported to the defendant as per the norms of the defendant.
18 On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for defendant that no intimation is given immediately. The loss CS NO.11695/16 Pramod Gupta The Oriental Insurance Page 6/10 7 was reported only on 17.12.2012 after the delay of 18 days of alleged theft. It is stated that it has never been notified about the loss at any point of time prior to unloading of LPG so there was no occasion to defendant company to access the loss.
19 As far as this case of defendant is concerned, there is no such plea taken in the written statement. Even no such plea was taken by DW1 in his examination in chief. No such question in this regard is asked from PW1. So, this case that defendant was never given any opportunity to access the loss of LPG was never put forward by the defendant. Only plea taken is that the matter was reported with delay. Even from the perusal of the record, it appears the the defendant never intended to proceed in this regard because it had written a three line letter Ex.PW1/9 in which the defendant had taken the position that they will not entertain the claim. The contents of Ex.PW1/9 are as follows: In connection to your letter dated 17.12.2012, we would like to inform you that due to late intimation of claim, we are not in the position to entertain the above claim.
Had they entertained the claim, then only the question of survey or anything related to that would have come into picture.
CS NO.11695/16 Pramod Gupta The Oriental Insurance Page 7/10 820 So, from record, the only reason of repudiation of insurance claim of plaintiff by the defendant is the alleged delay of 18 days in reporting by the plaintiff. As far as this plea is concerned, Hon. Supreme Court in Jaina Construction Company Vs. Oriental Insurance Company, Civil appeal No. 1069/2022 DOD 11.02.2022 had stated that mere delay in non reporting the loss, cannot be the basis of repudiation of insurance claim when the person claiming insurance had already lodged an FIR and the police had successfully solved the crime.
21 So, in these circumstances, the reason of the defendant to repudiate the insurance claim of the plaintiff, on only the delay of 18 days, in view of the law laid down by Hon. Supreme Court was unjustified. Thus the plaintiff has not violated any terms and conditions of contract. The same is held accordingly. These issues are decided in these terms.
ISSUE NO. 3Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any compensation as mentioned in the plaint 22 In the plaint, plaintiff asked compensation of Rs.4,19,194/. This claim was sought by plaintiff in Ex.PW1/7.
CS NO.11695/16 Pramod Gupta The Oriental Insurance Page 8/10 9In examination in chief Ex.PW1/A, plaintiff has stated about this amount in paragraph 3 and paragraph 7. No suggestion about this amount or claim is given in the crossexamination of PW1. Similarly, there is no evidence about this amount in the affidavit of DW1. So, in these circumstances, it appears that defendant has chosen not to contest these facts in evidence. So, evidence with respect to demand of insurance claim of Rs.4,19,194/ by the plaintiff, went unrebutted and thus proved.
Hence plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs.4,19,194/.
23 As far as interest is concerned, plaintiff has claimed interest @18% per annum. There does not appear any binding contract in this regard. In the absence of the same the interest is awarded @ 10% per annum w.e.f December, 2012 till the realization of the amount. This issue is decided in these terms.
RELIEF 24 In view of my issue wise discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is decided and following reliefs follow:
(i) The suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendant for the recovery of Rs.4,19,194/.
(ii) Interest @ 10% per annum is also awarded w.e.f.
December, 2012, till realization of amount.
CS NO.11695/16 Pramod Gupta The Oriental Insurance Page 9/10 10(iii) Cost of the suit is also awarded.
25 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
26 File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court (Rakesh Pandit) on 04.08.2023 Addl. District Judge09, Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi CS NO.11695/16 Pramod Gupta The Oriental Insurance Page 10/10