NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD vs NIRANJAN SINGH

COMPLAINANT Niranjan Singh had got his jeep insured with OP -1/New India Assurance Company Ltd. with effect from 8.1.2000. Four months later, it was stolen on 10.5.2000. However, his claim under the policy was repudiated by OP -1 on 25.1.2001. The letter of repudiation stated the following as the ground for repudiation "We may inform you that your case was put up before the Competent Authority for consideration and the Competent Authority has repudiated the above claim as there is violation of policy clause "LIMITATION AS TO USE" because the vehicle is insured as Private vehicle whereas the same was being used as TAXI, secondly there is also ''Misrepresentation of material facts'' as the vehicle was stolen from Bathinda and the FIR was lodged at Sangrur by mentioning the place of theft as Sangrur."

DISTRICT Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the repudiation was justified. It observed that "10. If the jeep had been stolen from Sangrur on 10.5.2000 at about 2.00 p.m. as alleged in FIR Ex.C -6, the natural and probable conduct of the complainant/owner would have been to report its theft/loss immediately to the local police. This report was actually lodged at police station, kotwali, Sangrur on 14.5.2000 at 7.50 p.m. It appears that the interregnum was used for deliberations so that the use of the jeep as a taxi might remain under cover. We find it difficult to accept the explanation for delay in lodging claim of report of the vehicle to the police on the ground that efforts were made till then for its search.

As a result of above circumstances, we are not convinced with the story of the complainant to the effect that the jeep was stolen from Sangrur. It appears, as pleaded by the opposite party No.1 that it was in use as taxi and had been taken to Bathinda as such from where it was stolen on 10.5.2000."

THE above order was reversed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the Appeal filed by the Complainant. The State Commission has made an independent detailed examination of the pleadings and evidence and arrived at the following findings of facts: - It is not proved on record that the vehicle was plied as a taxi. The fact of theft of the vehicle and its non -recovery is admitted in the report of the Investigator relied upon by the OP. There is nothing on record to show that the vehicle was stolen from Bathinda and not Sangrur. The FIR was registered at Sangrur and No Trace Report was filed by the Sangrur Police. There was no nexus between the factum of theft and the manner of use of the vehicle. The question whether the vehicle was being plied as a taxi is not germane to the manner in which it was stolen.

In the above background, the State Commission allowed compensation of Rs.3.25 lakhs against insured value of Rs.3.73 lakhs. The amount awarded was the market value of the vehicle at the time of theft, as assessed by the Surveyor.

WE have carefully considered the records, as submitted in the Revision Petition and heard learned Advocates representing the two sides. The main ground of challenge to the order of the State Commission is that the affidavit of Mr. Harjit Singh, a retired Superintendent of Police, who had investigated the claim on behalf of the OP has not been duly considered. Allegedly, another person had travelled with the driver of the vehicle from Sangrur to Bhatinda on 10.5.2000. Both had stayed in a hotel and the next morning the companion of the driver had driven away with the vehicle. According to the petitioner, the evidence of Harjit Singh had remained unchallenged and uncontroverted before the fora below.

A copy of this document had been produced by the petitioner and has been perused. In this affidavit of 25.8.2001, deponent Harjit Singh refers to his investigation report of 20.10.2000. The enclosed report categorically claims that the investigation was entrusted to Shivaji Ram Bansal, a retired Inspector of Sangrur Police. It is this report, which carries details of the alleged travel of the driver with the vehicle and accompanied by another person to Bhatinda. It also states that the person accompanying the driver of the jeep had locked the driver inside the room and taken away the jeep from the hotel where they had stayed on the previous night. However, Inspector Shivaji Ram Bansal has also mentioned that the hotel authorities did not cooperate with the investigation.

SIGNIFICANTLY , the same report of investigation carries the following paragraph as well: - "ASI Ajit Singh Kotwali Sangrur disclosed that case FIR No.167 dt. 14.5.2000 u/s 379 IPC PS Kotwali Sangrur (photocopy enclosed) was first investigated by ASI Harmel Singh; but at this stage it was being investigated by him. Police according to the ASI did visit various places; but there was no mention in the file regarding a visit to Sepal Hotel Bhatinda. Jeep of mistri Niranjan Singh had genuinely been stolen; which could not be recovered till then."

WHAT is evident from the above is that while in his affidavit Shri Harjit Singh IPS (Retd.) claims to have investigated the matter, in effect, it is based on investigation done by another person namely, Shivaji Ram Bansal, retired Inspector of Police. The affidavit is not only outside the purview of personal knowledge but also based on a report, which is internally contradictory. At one stage it refers to evidence of theft from Bathinda. At another stage it refers to the investigation and findings of the Sangrur Police. We therefore, find ourselves in agreement with the State Commission that the evidence on record does not establish that the vehicle was stolen from Bhatinda.

THE only other ground raised by the petitioner is about vehicle being insured for personal/private use and the premium charged being for the same but not for operating the vehicle as a taxi. This contention would not make it a case of a fundamental breach of the policy conditions, even if it was an established case of a private vehicle having been used for purposes of hire. Were it so, the insured would still be entitled to settlement of the claim on non -standard basis. Thus, in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, 2008 4 CPJ 1 (SC) facts were very similar. The Insurance Company had repudiated its liability on the ground that a vehicle insured for personal use, had been used as a Taxi. Hon''ble Supreme Court held that in cases of theft of vehicle, nature of their use cannot be made the basis for repudiation. Hence, award of 75% of the claim was upheld. Respectfully following the view taken by the Apex Court, we hold that the State Commission has rightly allowed Rs.3.25 lakhs against the insured value of Rs.3.73 lakhs. Hence, we find no merit in the Revision Petition. It is consequently dismissed with no order as to cost.