TAYAL ENTERPRISES Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

(2.) Very briefly the facts leading to filing the complaint were that the petitioner M/s. Tayal Enterprises, a partnership firm, owned a car which was lent to one of his friends who in turn had given it to some other people and it was used to go up to Goa, where allegedly one of the occupants of the car asked the driver to give him the car to fetch the camera but, subsequently, neither the person, i.e., Mr. Shinde nor the car came back, in view of which an FIR was lodged with the Goa Police whereupon they registered a case under Sections 406 and 34, IPC and finally after investigation an 'FR' was filed. The matter was also reported to the respondent Insurance Company, who had insured the car for Rs. 1,40,000 when the petitioner/complainant was not getting any response to settle their claim, a complaint was filed by one Mr. Jag Mohan, having power of attorney from one Mrs. Pushpa Kumari Aggarwal, being a partner of the petitioner firm. The District Forum, after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint. An appeal against this order also met the same fate, hence this revision petition before us.

(3.) One of the grounds dismissing the complaint by the District Forum affirmed by the State Commission related to be the ground of limitation. Admittedly, the vehicle was lost/stolen on 8.6.1993 in Goa and this complaint has been filed before the District Forum only in March 1999. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a number of judgments that till the time claim is not repudiated the right to sue survives and period for limitation would start from the date of repudiation of the claim, which according to him has not been done till date. As per written version filed by the respondent before the District Forum, it was clearly stated that the claim of the petitioner was treated as 'No claim' way back on 11.6.1996 and the petition was communicated of the same decision. It is the case of the petitioners that they never got this letter, hence in their perspective, the claim was never repudiated and 'cause of action' would not arise till the time it is done and the period of limitation would start from that date. We find that this stand of the petitioners is quite untenable for more than one reasons. Firstly, since according to them the claim has not been repudiated till date, then what could have been the ground for filing the complaint in March 1999 and not wait further to file the complaint? It is also not in dispute that the offices of the respondent and complainant are in the same city. In ordinary circumstances, if the claim is not settled for sometime then the claimant would approach the Insurance Company and press for settlement of claim. We are unable to appreciate that if he had approached the respondents after June 1996, was he not told that the claim has been treated as 'No Claim'. As per his own version the petitioner is a prosperous and well-to-do firm and having adequate resources, except, perhaps, to prosecute this case for a number of years. Two other small points were raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that word 'No-claim' could not be treated as repudiation. We are afraid we do not share this perspective of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 'No claim' itself would mean that the claim stands repudiated. It was also argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it was a clear case of theft of vehicle and if the Goa Police registered the case under Sections 406 and 34 of IPC and 'FR' filed, it cannot be held against them. We are afraid we do not again share this perspective. Prima facie the police was not impressed of anyone stealing the car. We are also of the same view for the simple reason that it is one of the persons, namely, Mr. Shinde, who travelled from Udaipur to Goa on behest of this gentleman Mr. Jagmohan, himself took away the vehicle and never returned. We see on record no affidavit of Mr. Bageria as to what was his relationship with Mr. Shinde and how did he let him travel in the car which was taken away by him and what followup action was taken to trace him and the car? The conduct of the petitioner would come out very clearly if we reproduce their reply to letter dated 9.3.1995, addressed to the respondents, extract from the written version filed by the respondents before the District Forum. This reads as follows :