Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: design to commit in Raj Verma vs B.M. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. ... on 21 November, 2023Matching Fragments
"An intentional, wrongful act performed against another without legal justification or excuse."
Section 410 of the Indian Panel Code 1860 envisages the „Stolen Property‟ as under : -
"Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as "stolen property", whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without India. But, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property."
The above definition is very clear about the definition of "stolen property" and says that the property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been Appeal Nos.: Raj Verma Vs. Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Date of FA/23/90 & &. Pronouncement:
FA/23/131 Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Raj Verma 21/11/2023 committed, is designated as "stolen property". In the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the vehicle in question was entrusted to some known person on monthly rental basis by way of entering an agreement and that known person committed criminal breach of trust and sold the vehicle elsewhere, which also amounts to a malicious act which is a covered peril under the policy. Therefore, with the foregoing discussion we are of the considered view that the incident of loss of or damages to the insured vehicle comes under the category of theft as it was sold as stolen property committing breach of trust by a known person, who was entrusted with the vehicle on monthly rental basis under an agreement, which was an insured peril under the policy. Accordingly repudiation of claim in this ground was not justified on the part of the opposite parties/ insurance company.