AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—The present writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 11.3.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, thereby allowing the claim of respondent No. 1-claimant awarding an amount of Rs. 2,31,900/- on account of theft of vehicle, which was insured with the petitioner-company. To unravel the short controversy involved between the parties, brief narration of the essential facts would be required. Theft qua insured vehicle took place on 11.2.2011 and without any loss of time, respondent-claimant lodged the FIR No. 55 dated 12.2.2011 at police station Mangol Puri, u/s 379 IPC. Thus, there was no delay in lodging the FIR. However, the respondent-claimant did not simultaneously inform the petitioner-company about the incident of theft. The claimant-respondent lodged his claim on 20.5.2011 with the petitioner-company. His claim was rejected summarily on the ground that in view of the condition of the policy, claimant was bound to inform the insurance company within a period of 48 hours of the incident of theft. Since he was liable for breach of terms and conditions of the policy, he was not entitled for any claim. Having been left with no other option, the respondent-claimant approached the learned Permanent Lok Adalat u/s 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Repeated efforts were made for brining the parties to an amicable settlement. However, no settlement could be arrived at between the parties.
Faced with this situation, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat rightly proceeded further deciding the case on merits, because the petitioner-company never denied its consent for further proceedings. The claim of the respondent was partly allowed. The learned Permanent Lok Adalat rightly moulded the relief, directing deduction of 15% of the amount claimed, so as to strike a balance between the parties. Finally, the award dated 11.3.2013 (Annexure P-3) was passed directing the petitioner-company to indemnify the loss suffered by the claimant because of incident of theft wherein the insured vehicle was stolen. Hence this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since the respondent-claimant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, while not informing the incident of theft to the petitioner-company within 48 hours, he was not entitled for any claim. He further submits that the petitioner-company never gave its consent before the learned Permanent Lok Adalat for deciding the case on merits. He next contended that since the claim of respondent No. 1 was totally unwarranted on the face of it, he was not entitled for even a single penny. The petitioner-company was not liable to pay any amount on account of alleged loss suffered by respondent No. 1, because of the incident of theft. To buttress his arguments, he relies upon two judgments of this Court in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Vijay Kumar and Another, and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Lok Adalat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II and others, 2010 20 CPC 360. He prays for setting aside the impugned award by allowing the present writ petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the case, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.
It is a matter of record and also not in dispute that vehicle of the respondent-claimant was insured with the petitioner-company. The incident of theft in which the insured vehicle was stolen, is also not in dispute. It is also undisputed on record that FIR No. 55 dated 12.2.2011 was registered on the very date of incident at police station Mangol Puri, u/s 379 IPC. Thus, there was no delay in lodging the FIR. The respondent-claimant stated to have informed the petitioner-company on 20.5.2011, i.e. after about 3 months and 9 days. The claim of respondent-claimant was summarily rejected by the petitioner-company vide communication dated 3.2.2012 (Annexure P-4).
The sole reason given by the petitioner-company for repudiating the claim was that the claimant failed to inform it about the alleged incident of theft within 48 hours, which was one of the terms and conditions of the policy. However, the learned Permanent Lok Adalat has rightly moulded the relief in this regard, directing deduction of 15% of the amount of the respondent-claimant, which was rightly done to strike a balance between the parties. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the learned Permanent Lok Adalat committed no error of law, while passing the impugned order.
The late information about the incident of theft by the insured-claimant beyond the period of 48 hours will not prove to be fatal to his claim. At the most, it would be delayed claim. The delay was only about 3 months and 9 days and not an inordinate delay. Further, for this delayed claim, the claimant had to suffer 15% deduction in the amount of compensation, for which he was found entitled. Moulding of relief to this extent would definitely meet the ends of justice.
During the course of hearing, when confronted whether the claim of the respondent-claimant was bogus, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that claim was not bogus. Once the claim, as a matter of fact, was not found to be bogus and was not based on fraud, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Vijay Kumar''s case (supra) will clearly apply against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent-claimant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would have been perfectly correct had the claim of the respondent-claimant been found either bogus or based on fraud. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that the learned Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded on a factually correct and legally justified approach while passing the impugned order and the same deserves to be upheld for this reason also.
So far as the question of giving of consent was concerned, it is crystal clear from bare perusal of the record of the case that the petitioner-company never denied its consent. Further, written consent, as such, was not the requirement of law. Thus, the case in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited''s case (supra), will have no bearing in the present case because the claim was neither bogus nor based on fraud.
It is the settled principle of law that peculiar facts of each case are to be examined, considered and appreciated first, before applying any codified or judge made law thereto. Sometimes, difference of one circumstance or additional fact can make the world of difference, as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Padmasundara Rao and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others,
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any jurisdictional error or patent illegality apparent on record of the case. The claim of the respondent-claimant was found to be justified. The vehicle was admittedly insured with the petitioner-company, which was stolen and the incident of theft was immediately reported to the police, as noticed hereinabove. It has never been the case of the petitioner-company that claim of the respondent was either bogus or fraudulent. Only objection raised was that respondent-claimant lodged his claim with the petitioner-company after 3 months and 9 days and not within the stipulated period of 48 hours.
Thus, at the most, it can be said to be a delayed claim and not bogus claim. The delay was also not fatal in the circumstances of the case. Still further, 15% deduction from the total amount of compensation was rightly ordered by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat and that was only because of delayed claim. Thus, the petitioner-company has not suffered any prejudice. Learned counsel for the petitioner also failed to show any prejudice which might have been caused to the petitioner by passing of the impugned ordered. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be upheld for this reason also.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the present petition is misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance. Thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out. Resultantly, the instant petition stands dismissed, however, no order as to costs