Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited vs Monu Yadav

Ritu Bahri, J.—Challenge in this petition is to the Award dated 09.04.2014 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon-respondent No. 2, whereby petitioner-company has been directed to pay Rs. 7,89,000/- to the applicant-respondent No. 1 within a period of 40 days on completion of formalities/requirements.

Ms. Monu Yadav-respondent No. 1 made an application u/s 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Gurgaon, stating that she was owner of Tata Safari vehicle, bearing registration No. HR-26-BL-2117. The said vehicle was insured with Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd.-petitioner vide policy/cover note No. 31444632 for the period from 17.04.2012 to 16.04.2013. On 18.04.2012, she parked her vehicle in Jasrotia Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. When she came out from the hospital on 20.04.2012, the said vehicle was found missing and had been stolen by some unknown person. The information regarding theft of vehicle was immediately given to the local Police, whereupon FIR No. 142 dated 20.04.2012, u/s 379 IPC was registered at Police Station Hari Nagar, New Delhi. The police could not trace the vehicle and ultimately, an untraced report was filed on 26.05.2012. Despite completion of all the requisite formalities by respondent No. 1, the petitioner-company did not settle her claim with regard to the aforesaid vehicle.

The claim of respondent No. 1 was resisted by the petitioner-company on the ground that even though the vehicle was insured with the company, but the information regarding theft was given after a delay of 54 days. Hence, there was violation of condition No. 1 of the insurance policy, as timely investigation could not be conducted for the aforesaid reason. As per the report given by M/s. Vikas Kumar & Association, the applicant-respondent No. 1 had given a fabricated cover note without physical examination of the vehicle in question. This vehicle was got insured by concealing the fact that it had already been lost.

Before the Permanent Lok Adalat, efforts for conciliation were made, but could not succeed. Thereafter, the Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded to decide the application on merits by invoking the provisions of Section 22-C(8) of the Act. The plea of the petitioner-company has been rejected by the Permanent Lok Adalat by observing that the vehicle in question had been insured w.e.f. 17.04.2012 to 16.04.2013 and the theft had taken place on 18/20.04.2012. Hence, it was within the period of insurance. Since FIR with regard to the theft, had been registered promptly, the delay, if any, in reporting the matter to the insurance company would not amount to violation of any condition of the insurance policy.

The plea of the petitioner-company that the insurance policy was taken on the basis of fabricated cover notice, is liable to be rejected, as it was the duty of the insurance company to inspect the vehicle before commencement of the insurance. Hence, if the company had insured the vehicle and accepted the premium without doing any physical inspection, the owner of the vehicle (respondent No. 1) cannot be blamed for the said omission.

At this stage, reference can be made to the instructions dated 20.09.2011, issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority to all the insurance companies. As per the said instructions, this condition should not prevent the settlement of genuine claims particularly when there is delay in giving intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances. The companies were advised that they must not repudiate such claims on the ground of delay, especially when the police has been promptly informed in this regard.

After going through the impugned Award dated 09.04.2014 (Annexure P-5), this Court is of the view that the direction given by the Permanent Lok Adalat to make payment of Rs. 7,89,000/- does not require any interference. Recently, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Bar Council of India Vs. Union of India (UOI), while examining the provisions of Section 22(C) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, has held that the purpose of creating a Forum under the Public Utility Services was to offer an opportunity to get the petty disputes decided by providing an alternative Forum other than the Civil Court. In para Nos. 28 and 29 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

Sine qua non of taking cognizance of a dispute concerning public utility service by the Permanent Lok Adalat is that neither party to a dispute has approached the civil court. There is no merit in the submission of the petitioner that the service provider may pre-empt the consideration of a dispute by a Court or a forum under special statute by approaching the Permanent Lok Adalat established under Chapter VI-A of the 1987 Act and, thus depriving the user or consumer of such public utility service of an opportunity to have the dispute adjudicated by a civil court or a forum created under special statute. In the first place, the jurisdiction of for a created under the Special Statutes has not been taken away in any manner whatsoever by the impugned provisions. As noted above, the Permanent Lok Adalats are in addition to an not in derogation of for a provided under Special Statutes. Secondly, not a single instance has been cited where a provider of service of public utility in a dispute with its user has approached the Permanent Lok Adalat first. The submission is unfounded and misplaced.

The alternative institutional mechanism in Chapter VI-A with regard to the disputes concerning public utility service is intended to provide an affordable, speedy and efficient mechanism to secure justice. By not making applicable the CPC and the statutory provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, there is no compromise on the quality of determination of dispute since the Permanent Lok Adalat has to be objective, decide the dispute with fairness and follow the principles of natural justice. Sense of justice and equity continue to guide the Permanent Lok Adalat while conducting conciliation proceedings or when the conciliation proceedings fail, in deciding a dispute on merit.

Resultantly, in the light of the above discussion and the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned Award dated 09.04.2014 (Annexure P-5).

Dismissed.