MANISH MEHTA Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2006 which had reversed the finding of the trial judge dated 02.08.2005. Vide judgment and decree dated 02.08.2005, the suit filed by the plaintiff Sh. Manish Mehta seeking recovery of `78,590/- had been decreed for a sum of ` 58,590/- along with the interest at 6 % per annum. THIS was reversed by the impugned judgment. Suit of the plaintiff stood dismissed.

(2.) PLAINTIFF had purchased the Hyundai Santro car bearing no. DL-5CB-3326 on the hire basis; the finance had been obtained from the M/s G.M.A.C. TCFC Finance Ltd. The vehicle was insured with defendant no. 3 vide Insurance Policy dated 01.08.2000. On 12.03.2001, the vehicle was stolen. FIR was lodged in the concerned police station. On 14.03.2001, information about theft was given to the finance company. It was also conveyed to defendant no. 3. Since the vehicle no longer remained in possession of the plaintiff, the hire installments were not paid by the plaintiff. In the process of settlement and the negotiations which were going on with defendant no. 3 for payment of the insurance amount, the vehicle was recovered by the police on 26.05.2002; it was in a dilapidated state; it required extensive repairs. The car was delivered to the plaintiff on superdari. Necessary repairs were carried out. Information in this regard was given to the defendants. Defendant no. 3 obtained the survey report and sanctioned an amount of `54,676/- as damages. Meanwhile, some disputes arose between the plaintiff and the finance company on account of delay in payment of installments. Defendant no. 3 contravened his obligations and conveyed to the finance company the amount which had been sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff for the repair of the vehicle. This act of defendant no. 3 was malafide; it was in breach of the Insurance Policy between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 3. On 25.09.2002, defendant no. 3 asked the plaintiff to obtain the signatures of the finance company on the payment voucher as a token of no objection for making the payment of `54,676/- in the name of the plaintiff. Thereafter, in spite of requests, the amount was not released to the plaintiff. He sent legal notice dated 16.12.2002 but to no avail. A suit for injunction was filed by the plaintiff seeking a direction to defendant no. 3 to release the aforenoted amount in his favour which was thereafter released. The vehicle was ready for delivery but meanwhile M/s M.G.F. Automobiles Ltd. who had conducted the repairs demanded the sum of `12,000/- for parking this vehicle in this intervening period between June 2002 to January 2003 as the vehicle was ready for delivery but the same could not be taken by the plaintiff because of the funds not being available with him. The defendants had prevented the plaintiff from taking this delivery of the car in June 2002 as the money had not been released by them. PLAINTIFF had to hire the car from M/s. Dholakia Tours and Travels between June 2002 to January 2003 for his business purpose for which he had spent Rs. 93,180/-; 50 % of this amount i.e. ` 46,590/- has been claimed by the plaintiff; another sum of ` 20,000/- had been claimed on the account of harassment. Rs. 12,000/- were the parking charges. Total sum of ` 78,590/- had been claimed by filing the present suit.

(3.) ORAL and documentary evidence was led by. The trial judge was of the view that the plaintiff was entitled to the aforenoted amounts; defendants could not have asked for a No Objection Certificate from the plaintiff which he, in turn, had to obtain from the finance company; this was not a part of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendants. Suit of the plaintiff was accordingly decreed.