Unique theft of truck, consumer case for insurance claim & stand of Insurer unfolded in the Judgment dated 31.7.2023 of the Supreme Court
In order to verify the address for unloading stone dust on 26.6.2008, the driver of the appellant’s truck parked and alighted from the vehicle keeping the key in the keyhole of the truck.
After some distance, the driver found that two persons sitting in driver’s seat had taken away and stolen the truck.
FIR was registered. The appellant informed the theft incident to the insurance company.
On 11.6.2019, consumer case was filed since the insurer did not settle the claim of Rs.8,40,000/- i.e. sum insured of the vehicle.
Thereafter, on 15.10.2009, the Insurer issued the letter repudiating the claim on the ground of negligence of driver in not safe-guarding the truck.
However, the consumer complaint was withdrawn by the Advocate of the truck owner.
In 2012, the truck owner filed fresh complaint on the ground that the earlier complaint was withdrawn by mistake and that the Advocate was annoyed because of adjournments sought by the Insurer.
The District Forum granted compensation of 75% on non-standard basis. However, there was no finding on the bar to the filing of second case after withdrawal of first case.
In the appeal, the Insurer raised the issue of delay in intimation of theft and violation of condition no.5 of the policy.
However, the State Commission dismissed the appeal.
The Insurer had filed revision before the National Commission.
The National Commission found that the second case was barred and there was breach of condition no.5 i.e. the vehicle was left unattended.
HELD that the National Commission ought not to have allowed the Insurer to urge the point of bar to the second case since it was not argued before the State Commission, the withdrawal of the first case was by the Advocate of the insured on his own, the owner cannot be made to suffer and that the National Commission proceeded on erroneous premises on withdrawal of the first case. Coming to the delay of six days in truck theft intimation, it was noted that the FIR was lodged immediately on the second day the claim could not be repudiated on the ground of delay.
It was held that breach of condition no.5 in not safe-guarding the truck will not result in total repudiation of the claim when the theft is not in dispute.
Civil Appeal No.4758 of 2023 – Ashok Kumar Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
