NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. MALHOTRA TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the judgment of the first appellate court dtd. 27/1/2016. The first appellate court vide its impugned judgment dtd. 27/1/2016 has set aside the judgment of the trial court dtd. 28/9/2013 whereby the trial court had dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs.1,57,300.00 filed by the respondent/plaintiff claiming the amount of the value of the vehicle covered under the insurance policy. The first appellate court while allowing the first appeal and decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff held that the vehicle was stolen during the currency of the policy i.e after a cover-note was issued by the agent of the appellant/defendant and counter-signed by the officer of the appellant/defendant company and where after theft of the vehicle took place.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff was the owner of the vehicle Maruti Esteem bearing registration no. DL-4CC-6186. This vehicle was regularly insured by the respondent/plaintiff from the appellant/defendant company from the year 1997. The last period covered under the insurance policy was 28/12/1999 to 27/12/2000 and when it expired. Thereafter, as per the respondent/plaintiff, there was a break in the policy for two days, and a fresh cover-note was got issued on 29/12/2000 by the respondent/plaintiff from the agent of the appellant/defendant company and which cover-note was duly countersigned by the employee (Assistant Administrative Officer) of the appellant/defendant company. Cover-note was issued on the insurance premium cheque of Rs.2906.00 dtd. 29/12/2000 bearing no. 006275 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kingsway Camp Branch, Delhi and was handed over by the respondent/plaintiff to the agent of the appellant/defendant insurance company. The vehicle in question is said to have been stolen from outside Palika Bazaar, New Delhi on 31/12/2000 and with respect to which an FIR was lodged on 1/1/2001. Respondent/plaintiff claims that he informed both the agent of the appellant/defendant company as also the officer of the appellant/defendant company on 31/12/2000 and 1/1/2001, and also ultimately informed this fact in writing to the appellant/defendant company on 15/1/2001. Since the appellant/defendant company refused to pay the insured amount, the subject suit came to be filed.

(3.) The appellant/defendant contended that the cover-note issued was as a result of collusion of the respondent/plaintiff with the agent Sh. Girish Chawla of the appellant/defendant company who had issued the said cover-note, and that there was further collusion with the employee Sh. Ravi Jain (Assistant Administrative Officer) of the appellant/defendant company who had countersigned the cover note. The appellant/defendant claimed that the vehicle was stolen on 31/12/2000 but there was no valid cover-note issued on 29/12/2000 and in fact the cover-note was got issued after the theft of the vehicle giving a back-dated cheque of 29/12/2000 and getting the cover-note issued of the same date of 29/12/2000, and which as stated above is on account of collusion of the respondent/plaintiff with the agent Sh. Girish Chawla and the employee of the appellant/defendant company Sh. Ravi Jain.