NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. Vs. REENA PANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of District Forum, Shimla, dated 1.12.2010 passed in Consumer Complaint No.107/2009, whereby the complaint was allowed and Insurance Company was directed to indemnify the complainant to the extent of Rs.1,80,000 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the complaint. Litigation cost was quantified at Rs.2,500. Parties are hereinafter being referred to as per their status in the complaint.

(2.) FACTS of the case as they emerge from the record are that the complainant who is owner of Tempo Trax Pickup bearing registration No.HP -63 -0910 had insured her vehicle with the Insurance Company for an amount of Rs.1,80,000 and this insurance was valid with effect from 24.8.2007 to 23.8.2008. Kulbhushan was appointed as driver who took the aforesaid vehicle to Solan and on 22.11.2007 he went away with the vehicle with all relevant documents and did not return back. Thereafter intimation was given to the Police regarding loss of the vehicle on 24.11.2007 and as such F.I.R. No.24 of 2008 was registered in Police Station, West for offences under Section 379 & 406 I.P.C. and the intimation was also given to the Insurance Company regarding loss/theft of the vehicle. Thereafter complainant lodged claim with the Insurance Company and the opposite party -Insurance Company vide letter dated 22.1.2009 asked for the copy of the untraced report which was submitted on 14.9.2009 but the Insurance Company has failed to honour the claim of the complainant. Hence, deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party was alleged. In this background present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed against the opposite party wherein complainant had claimed insurance amount of Rs.1,80,000 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim with the opposite party and claimed damages to the tune of Rs.50,000 for mental harassment. Litigation cost of Rs.5,000 was also claimed.

(3.) THIS complaint was resisted and contested by the opposite party on the ground that this case is covered under Section 406 of I.P.C. which is a criminal breach of trust and not covered under the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy as being a case of misappropriation and not of theft and it was contended that the insured vehicle was taken away dishonestly by the driver of the complainant and it is not a case of theft.