United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ravi Kant Gopalka on 13 September, 2007

  
 
 
 
 
 
 NCDRC
  
 
 
 







 



 

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION 

 

  NEW DELHI

 

 

 

 REVISION PETITION  NO. 1958 OF 2004 

 

(from the order dated 18.3.04 in Appeal No.507/03 of the
State Commission, Jharkhand) 

 

  

 

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 

 

Ramgarh Cantt. Branch 

 

Distt. Hazaribagh. 

 

  

 

Through Dy.Manager 

 

  Delhi Regional Office 1 

 

  Kanchengunga  Building 

 

Barakhamba Raod 

 

  New Delhi. 
Petitioner 

 

  

 Versus 

 

  

  Ravi Kant Gopalka 

 

Prop. of M/s.Chhotanagpur Finance Corpn. 

 

Ramgarh Cantt. 

 

Distt. Hazaribagh 
Respondent  

 

  

 

  

 

 BEFORE : 

 

 HONBLE MR.JUSTICE M.B. SHAH,
PRESIDENT 

 

 MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER 

 

 MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER

 

  

 

For the Petitioner : Ms.Sakshi Mittal, Advocate for 

 

 Mr.Vishnu Mehra, Advocate 

 

  

 

For the Respondent : NEMO 

 

  

 

 13.09.2007 

 ORDER 

M.B. SHAH, J., PRESIDENT

Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgement and order dated 18.3.2004 passed by
the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand,
in Appeal No.507/2003, the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred
to as the insurance company) has preferred this revision petition. The State Commission, by the impugned order,
has confirmed the order passed by the District Forum, Hazaribagh,
in Complaint Case No.200/1997 filed by the complainant (respondent) for reimbursement
of the loss suffered by him because of the theft of the car owned by him during
the currency of the policy period. The
District Forum, by its judgement and order dated 20.10.2003, allowed the
complaint and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- with
interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from 1.1.1998 till its payment, together with
a compensation of Rs.1,000/-.

Undisputedly,
the policy cover is for Private Car B Policy, wherein it has been stated that
the insurance company will indemnify the insured against the loss or damage to
the motorcar and/or its accessories whilst thereon, inter alia,
by burglary, housebreaking or theft and also by malicious act, etc. It is the case of the complainant that the
vehicle was taken away by the driver for servicing but the driver neither
turned up nor did he bring back the vehicle.
Hence, an FIR was lodged on 6.10.1994 against the driver for committing
theft of the vehicle. Simultaneously,
the insurance company was also informed and claim was lodged. However, the insurance company repudiated the
claim in July 1997. Hence, the complaint
was filed.

The
State Commission relied upon the say of the complainant that the vehicle was
taken away by the driver and was not returned and that the driver was not
traceable. However, learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that the Police had registered a case under Section
406 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and, therefore, the act of taking away of
the vehicle by the driver would not amount to theft.

In our view, this submission is without any
justification because of the definition of theft under Section 378 of the
I.P.C. Illustration (d) to Section 378
specifically provides that –

A, being Zs servant, and entrusted by Z with the
care of Zs plate, dishonestly runs away with the plate, without Zs
consent. A has committed theft.

In
any case, this would be a malicious act and the policy covers such peril. Further, the exclusion clauses also nowhere
provide that an offence under Section 406 of I.P.C. is excluded.

Further, in our view, this loss of the car could also
be construed to be covered by the general category of malicious acts, a set of
grounds used in the policy. It is a
malicious act of a person who was an employee of the insured at the relevant
time.

Hence,
this Revision Petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs, as none appears for the respondent.

J.

(M.B. SHAH)

PRESIDENT

.

(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO)

MEMBER

(ANUPAM DASGUPTA)

MEMBER

sra/ 17 / Court-1