NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. HARDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner is present. The respondent has not turned up even after accepting the amount of Rs.7,500/-. The receipt has been placed on record. Therefore, the respondent be proceeded against ex parte.

(2.) The case of Shri Hardeep Singh-complainant is that during the pendency of the insurance policy issued by New India Assurance Co. Ltd.-OP, his vehicle was snatched by unknown persons on 10-04-2010 when the same was being driven by Manohar Lal Son of Shri Ram Dass. It is also explained that the driver received injuries. He remained under treatment from 10-04-2010 to 13-04-2010, as per the discharge certificate. Consequently, he lodged FIR on 13-04-2010. There is not even an iota of evidence which may go to show that the information was given to the insurance company immediately. It was given on 20-04-2010 after a delay of 10 days. It is also difficult to fathom why did the report was lodge after a delay of 3 days in such a serious case. The police could have been called at the hospital. Information should have been given to Shri Hardeep Singh immediately. In April, 2010, people used to have mobile phones. Even a phone should have been made to the owner, Shri Hardeep Singh. The Supreme Court of India in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha, CA No.6739 of 2010 decided on 17-08-2010 held as under:

(3.) In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane, FA No.321 of 2005, decided on 09-12-2009, by the Bench headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, a similar view was taken. The word 'immediately' was discussed at a great length. 'Immediately' at best means 'in a day or two'.