(1.) SUBHASH Chander, the complainant, obtained insurance policy in respect of his goods carrying vehicle from the National Insurance Co. Ltd./opp.party, for the period covering from 01.09.2007 to 31.08.2008. During the intervening night of 3rd and 4th April, 2008, some persons took lift from the driver. The driver was intoxicated at that time. Those persons ran away with the vehicle. FIR was lodged on 07.04.2008 under Sections 328 and 392 of IPC. The insured intimated about the theft of vehicle to the insurer on 17.04.2008. The police arrested the accused and they are facing the trial before the criminal court. However, the Police is unable to recover the said truck. According to the confession made by one of the accused, Karambir, he purchased the truck from his co -accused, for a sum of Rs.1,75,000/ - and converted the Truck into several pieces and sold the same to various junk dealers in Delhi.
(2.) THE complainant made several requests to the Insurance Company , to pay the insurance amount but the needful was not done. Consequently, a complaint was filed before the District Forum.
(3.) ALL these arguments fail to impress us. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the story created by the Truck driver is made out of whole cloth. There is nothing on record which may go to show that the driver of the Truck tried to pull the wool in the eyes of law. It stands proved that the Truck was stolen. The police arrested the accused persons. The confession of Karambir, one of the accused, goes to show that the Truck was dismantled and was sold to junk dealer. Under the circumstances, the story put forward by the driver is genuine, and there is no iota of evidence to show that due to the negligence of the driver, the Truck was stolen. The Truck was locked by the driver. The pendency of the criminal complaint has no bearing on this case. The remedy available to the 'consumer ' is in addition to the other remedies, which are available to him. In a car theft case in reference National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, 2008 CTJ 680 (SC) (CP), the Apex Court was pleased to hold: