PT. RAMA NAND SHASTRI vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

THIS appeal is by the complainant challenging order of District Forum, Jalandhar whereby his complaint was dismissed.

THE complaint was filed against Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., who had repudiated the claim with respect of Bajaj Auto-rickshaw, which was got insured immediately after its purchase by the complainant from the Insurance Company. THE insurance policy was in the sum of Rs. 39,000/-. THE policy commenced from September 14,1991 for a year. THE complainant had purchased three wheeler on September 13,1991 for Rs. 38,602/-. On March 9, 1992 complainant''s employee Yadwinder Singh had taken away the autorickshaw and did not return. A report with Police Station Gobind Nagar (Kanpur) was lodged on that very day vide No. 132. THE police filed the case as not traced as per report made on September 9,1992. THE claim was made with the Insurance Company who repudiated the claim as alleged on July 16, 1993 and the District Forum was approached on August 20, 1993. THE Insurance Company took up the plea that the repudiation made on July 16, 1993, was valid. Some other pleas were also taken that the matter was not covered under the insurance policy or it was not a consumer dispute. Both the parties led their evidence on affidavit and documents. THE District Forum while dismissing the complaint observed that since the factum of theft was denied it was beyond the scope of the Forum to go into it. It was further observed that three-wheeler purchased was for transportation of the goods and used for commercial purposes. THEre was averment in the complaint that auto-rickshaw was purchased for complainant''s personal use. Thus complaint was liable to be dismissed and so ordered. The approach of the District Forum in the present case is entirely untenable in law. The present is a simple case of the complainant hiring services of the Insurance Company under the insurance policy taken and deficiency in rendering the same as the Insurance Company did not settle the claim with respect to the loss of the three, wheeler which was got insured. In the matter of hiring services for consideration, the element of commercial activity is irrelevant.

The mere fact that the allegation of theft as alleged by the complainant had been denied by the Insurance Company is no ground to shed hands in not giving relief to the complainant. Since the policy issued was comprehensive which fact was not denied in respective paragraph of the written statement filed by the Insurance Company, it was immaterial that whether the loss was occurred on account of theft or otherwise. Even if a person had taken away the three-wheeler with the permission of the owner and had not subsequently come back to return, it will be a loss to the complainant, and also would be covered under the definition of theft as such a person removed the vehicle without permission of the complainant though initially such permission was implied when he took away the keys of the vehicle. Be that as it may, since the insurance policy being comprehensive every type of loss is covered therein unless excluded by the terms and conditions of the policy.

THE repudiation of the claim as made by the Insurance Company vide letter dated July 16, 1993 (page 31 of the record of the District Forum) is based on the fact that the complainant himself had given the keys of the vehicle to his own man, who had taken away the vehicle. From that, it was taken that no attempt of theft was there. THE repudiation on the ground as such is arbitrary. As already stated above removal of the vehicle and not returning it would also amount to theft, although it may also amount to breach of trust. THEft has been defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, New Edition, 1990s at page 1265 as under: "theft: n.1 the act or an instance of sealing 2. Law: dishonest appropriation of another''s property with intent to deprive him or her of it permanently." Since the definition of theft also includes dishonest appropriation of another''s property with intents to deprive him or her of it permanently, the present case was fully be covered under the definition of theft. As already stated above, after the loss was reported to the police, the matter was investigated and police submitted the report of untraceable theft. This would indicate that it was a permanent loss to the complainant.

IN the facts stated above deficiency in rendering service on the part of the INsurance Company in not paying the insured amount is writ large. We hold accordingly. The complainant is entitled to the insured amount. The complainant is also entitled to compensation as the insured amount was not promptly paid to the complainant. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed. Order of the District Forum is set-aside. Complaint is allowed. A direction is given to the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 39,000/- with 12% p.a. interest thereon w.e.f. July 16,1993 the date of repudiation of the claim till payment. The complainant will get costs of the two Courts, which are assessed at Rs. 2,000/-. The direction be complied within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Appeal allowed with costs.