National Insurance Co. Ltd vs SUBHASH CHANDER

SUBHASH Chander, the complainant, obtained insurance policy in respect of his goods carrying vehicle from the National Insurance Co. Ltd./opp.party, for the period covering from 01.09.2007 to 31.08.2008. During the intervening night of 3rd and 4th April, 2008, some persons took lift from the driver. The driver was intoxicated at that time. Those persons ran away with the vehicle. FIR was lodged on 07.04.2008 under Sections 328 and 392 of IPC. The insured intimated about the theft of vehicle to the insurer on 17.04.2008. The police arrested the accused and they are facing the trial before the criminal court. However, the Police is unable to recover the said truck. According to the confession made by one of the accused, Karambir, he purchased the truck from his co-accused, for a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- and converted the Truck into several pieces and sold the same to various junk dealers in Delhi.

THE complainant made several requests to the Insurance Company , to pay the insurance amount but the needful was not done. Consequently, a complaint was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum dismissed the complaint but the State Commission reversed the order of the District Forum and directed the petitioner herein to pay IDV value of the vehicle, after deducting 10% of the depreciation, to the complainant/respondent herein.

We have heard the counsel for the petitioner at the time of admission of this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that they were also intimated after about 14 days '' of the occurrence of the incident. He further submitted that the Truck was robbed due to the negligence of the driver.

ALL these arguments fail to impress us. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the story created by the Truck driver is made out of whole cloth. There is nothing on record which may go to show that the driver of the Truck tried to pull the wool in the eyes of law. It stands proved that the Truck was stolen. The police arrested the accused persons. The confession of Karambir, one of the accused, goes to show that the Truck was dismantled and was sold to junk dealer. Under the circumstances, the story put forward by the driver is genuine, and there is no iota of evidence to show that due to the negligence of the driver, the Truck was stolen. The Truck was locked by the driver. The pendency of the criminal complaint has no bearing on this case. The remedy available to the ''consumer '' is in addition to the other remedies, which are available to him. In a car theft case in reference National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, 2008 CTJ 680 (SC) (CP), the Apex Court was pleased to hold: "In the case in hand, the vehicle has been snatched or stolen. In the case of theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not germane. The appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer. The respondent submitted that even assuming that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on ''non-standard '' basis. The Insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft ".

THIS must be borne in mind that the instant case stands on no better footing than the facts of the above said authority. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.