Shankar Chakrawarti vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD

SH . Chakrawarti, who is the complainant is the registered owner of the Tata Truck bearing No. C.G.04/J-2969. He obtained insurance policy for the said vehicle in the sum of Rs.9.20,000/-, covering the period 07.09.2007 to 06.09.2008, issued by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd, the respondent. The vehicle was sent to Mumbai which was loaded with rice and on its way back to Raipur, along with the Driver and the Cleaner, the same was stolen. The driver and the cleaner could not be located. A report was lodged with the Police Station on 16.02.2008 and the respondent, Insurance Company was intimated prior to that on 09.02.2008. Insurance company did not pay compensation till, 28.07.2009. The driver and the cleaner could not be traced. Under the circumstances, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, wherein he claimed Rs.9,20,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- for deficiency in service and for other losses. The complaint was allowed and petitioner was directed to pay Rs.9,20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of complaint, Rs.3,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.1,000/- as costs.

THE respondent, Insurance Company preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission partly allowed the appeal and held that at the place of full "Insured Declared Value " of the stolen vehicle in the sum of Rs.9,20,000/-, the insurance company is directed to pay only 75%, which works out to be Rs.6,90,000/-, to the complainant/petitioner, along with interest as directed by the District Forum and also to pay compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation, as directed by the District Forum. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He argued that full amount of Rs.9,20,000/- be granted in favour of the petitioner. We see no force in this argument. It must be borne in mind that the theft of the Truck was committed by the driver and the cleaner, who were the complainant ''s own employees. Secondly, there is some delay in sending the information to the insurance company. The complaint does not state when did the incident take place. The complaint is conspicuously silent as to when did the vehicle leave for Mumbai. It also does not state as to why the information was given to the Insurance Company before lodging the FIR, one week later. It does not give the antecedents of the driver and cleaner. The Foras below were satisfied with the explanation given by the complainant that they were searching the vehicle and waiting for the vehicle to arrive at the destination, so it caused the said delay. However, some delay is there. There is some delay in lodging the FIR. It is apparent that the learned State Commission has considered both sides of the coin. The Fora is bound to approach the problem more gingerly and realistically. The State Commission has meticulously checked the record with precision and clarity. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Commission reduced the value of the Insurance policy to 75%, which appears to be correct. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.