Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs SHRI PREM LAL

THE challenge in this appeal is to the orders of the learned District Forum, dated 27th November, 1995, whereby the opposite party "hereinafter to be referred to as the appellant" has been directed to pay the insurance money of Rs. 1,10,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of Surveyor report i.e., 28.9.92 to the date of payment of aforesaid money. THE costs of Rs. 500/- has also been awarded.

THE relevant facts which are necessary to be mentioned for determining the points in controversy are that the complainant "hereinafter to be referred to as the respondent" owned a Maruti Van bearing registration No. HP-02-1071 and also employed one Shri Meen Bahadur of Manali as driver for driving the vehicle as taxi. This vehicle was insured with the appellant for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- vide Policy Cover Note No. 625796 dated 7.11.91, for a period of one year. On 9.5.92, at about 9.00 a.m., during the period when the insurance policy was in force, the respondent noticed that his taxi was not available in the garage, where the same had been parked on the previous night. After thorough search, it was discovered that the vehicle has been stolen by the driver himself who was employed by the respondent. According to the appellant''s Counsel, this case is a case of criminal breach of trust as the vehicle was entrusted by the respondent to the driver for driving the same as a taxi which was stolen by him and the case of criminal breach of trust is not covered under the terms of the policy and therefore, the appellant is fully justified in repudiating the claim of the respondent.

We have considered this argument and we do not find any force. The vehicle was no doubt given to the driver for driving it as a taxi. However, the fact remains that it was stolen by the driver and therefore, it is a case of theft, and theft is covered under the terms of the insurance policy. It is immaterial that such vehicle was entrusted to the driver by the respondent and who was his employee. Even if it is assumed that it is case of criminal breach of trust, this does not mean that this case will cease to be a case of theft. A person can be guilty of various offences simultaneously.

INEXACTLY similar case, Deepak Agency v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., III (1995) CPJ 38=1995 (1) CPR 760, exactly in the same circumstances, the case was considered as the theft and repudiation of the claim was held to be arbitrary. In this case, the following observation may be noted : "The truck of the complainant was stolen. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that as the truck was under the control and custody of the driver of the complainant when the loss occurred, it was not a case of theft but of criminal breach of trust by the driver of the complainant. Held, There is no provision in the policy stipulating that the Insurance Company would not be liable to indemnify the complainant against loss caused by theft if theft had been committed by an employee of the insured. Repudiation is arbitrary. Complaint allowed with costs of Rs. 2,000/-."

In the light of this, there is no force in this appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.