PANJIM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MRS.RASHMI A.SIRSAT

AFTER hearing the Counsel on both sides, we have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that there is no merit in this appeal. The Respondent (Complainant) had insured his car with the appellant Insurance Company, against various risks including the risk of theft. The policy was valid for the period 3.7.1987 to 2.7.1988. The driver to whom the car had been entrusted by the complainant for plying as a taxi on 20th October, 1987 disappeared with the car and nothing was heard of him or of the car thereafter. On coming to know all this, the complainant lodged a claim with the Insurer stating that the car had been lost by reason of misappropriation or theft. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the case registered with the police on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant is one under Section 407 of IPC and not under Section 379 of IPC and hence this cannot be regarded as a case of theft. Thereupon the respondent filed a complaint before the State Commission seeking to recover the full amount of insurance value of the car together with interest. The said complaint was allowed by the State Commission as prayed for and hence this appeal by the Insurer.

BEFORE this Commission also the appellant reiterated its plea that the instant car cannot be regarded as one of loss of the car by theft and hence the Insurance Company is not liable for the claim as per the terms of the policy. We see no force at all in this contention. What would constitute the offence of theft is to be seen from the language used in the provisions of Section 379 of IPC. Illustration-D to that Section clearly and directly covers the contingency which has occurred in the present case, namely, the person who had been entrusted with an article or an item of goods dishonestly running away with the said article. Such being the legal position, we are of opinion that the Insurance Company should not have adopted such an attitude at all, but should have paid up the money covered by the insurance policy to the respondent. Inasmuch as that was not done, the State Commission rightly directed the Insurance Company to pay to the complainant the amount for which the car had been insured, namely, Rs. 1 Lakh.

WE confirm the order passed by the State Commission and direct that the amount of Rs. 1 lakh shall be paid with interest at the rate of 15% from the date of the State Commission''s order up till the date of payment. We further direct that the full amount payable by the appellant shall be paid to the respondent within a period of one month from today. The parties will bear their respective costs.