ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. HANS RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 19.08.2010(P-1) passed by respondent No. 2 whereby the petitioner-Insurance Company has been directed to settle the claim of respondent No. 1 on account of theft of his insured tractor at an amount of Rs.1,23,500/-.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 Hans Raj is owner of Eicher Tractor No. HR-26-AK-9965 Engine No. 1176688, Chasis No. 860260, Model No. 241 and the same was insured with the petitioner-Insurance Company, vide policy No. 211200/31/34069 w.e.f 1.9.2007 to 31.8.2008 and has been been premium of Rs.3264/- to the petitioner-Insurance Company. On 11.11.2007 at about 2.30 P.M, respondent No. 1 parked the said tractor in front of his house and after passing some hours i.e at about 5.00 P.M, respondent No. 1 found that the said tractor was not there. The complainant/respondent No. 1 reported the matter with the police at PS Sector 10, Gurgaon and F.I.R No. 467 dated 17.11.2007 u/s 379 IPC was registered. Respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner-Insurance Company about the theft of tractor and has submitted all the relevant papers in its office for claiming the claim of theft. The claim of respondent No. 1 was however rejected by the petitioner-Insurance Company on the ground that he was responsible for the theft of the insured vehicle and further it was averred that respondent No. 1 had not informed about the theft of tractor in time. The petitioner- Insurance Company thus could not appoint the surveyor and investigator to investigate the theft. Thereafter, respondent No. filed a complainant under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act for 2002 for Public Utility Service before Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon and the Permanent Lok Adalat came to a conclusion that theft took place on 11.11.2007 and the matter was reported to the police on 17.11.2007. The untraced report is dated 15.02.2009. There was some lapse on part of complainant/respondent No. 1 for giving information to the police and the petitioner-insurance company. Hence after deducting 25% of the value insured as Rs.1,66,000/- and a sum of Rs.1000/- was deducted as excess clause. The petitioner-Insurance Company was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,23,500/-.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per policy (P-2), the claim for benefit of a vehicle was not possible if the theft was not reported tot he Company in 48 hours of the occurrence. Reference has been made to the instructions issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority on 20.09.2011 to all the insurance companies. As per this insurance this condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims particularly when this delay in intimation or in submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances. The companies were advised that they must not repudiate such claims on the ground of delay. Keeping in view the above instructions, the PLA has given a direction to petitioner-Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs.1,23,500/- within one month from the dat of award failing which respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to recover the amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum w.e.f 15.05.2009 till payment.