Surinder Pal vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. And ...
2001 Latest Caselaw 1939 Del

JUDGMENT

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

1. Surinder Pal has filed the present suit against the defendant No. 1 for recovery of Rs. 6,50,000/-.

2. The facts alleged are that the plaintiff purchased truck TATA 1612 bearing registration No. HR-10GA-0030 model 1997. The said vehicle was insured with defendant No. 1 which is a subsidiary of defendant No. 2. The total cost of the vehicle was Rs. 5,12,295/-. The petitioner had paid Rs. 1,13,000/- and remaining Rs. 4 lakh was financed by defendant No. 2. The finance amount was payable in 36 Installments of Rs. 4688/- per month during the period 1st December, 1997 to 1st October, 2000. The petitioner entered into a hire purchase agreement with defendant No. 2 and requisite documents to this effect had been executed. Thereafter the truck was given in the possession of the plaintiff through defendant No. 2 from the original purchaser on 20th November, 1999. It was only a chassis and the body was to be built thereon. The plaintiff got a body built through a body builder.

3. The truck was put to public carrier purpose and was used to ply at the disposal of the customers. It was insured with defendant No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 6,25,000/-. Defendant No. 1 issued cover note towards insurance of the said vehicle. On 14th March, 1998 the driver parked the vehicle t Harjeet Filling Station, Village Alipur. The truck was stolen from the petrol pump by someone and case was registered. The petitioner informed defendant No. 1 about the theft but defendant No. 1 has not indemnified the plaintiff/petitioner. In these circumstances it is claimed that the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the amount for which the vehicle was insured. Notice as such had been issued. Appearance had been put in on behalf of the defendant. on 16th August, 1999 this court had directed that defendant No. 1 without prejudice to the rights of the parties to deposit amount of Rs. 5,47,000/- which had been offered by the defendant. The said amount was not deposited. Thereafter when the matter was listed the defendants did not put in appearance and had been proceeded ex parte. The evidence was allowed to be led by filing of the affidavits.

4. In support of his case the affidavit of Surinder Pal, plaintiff has been filed who supports the contentions int he plaint that he had purchased the truck referred to above. It was insured with defendant No. 1, copy of the insurance policy was proved as Ex. PW1/3. The truck was stated to have been stolen but it is claimed that the insured amount has not been paid.

5. There is precious little on the record to disbelieve the statement and therefore it must be held that plaintiff is entitled to the amount claimed i.e. Rs. 6,50,000/-. Out of the said amount Rs. 5,47,000/- has already been paid as per the affidavit of the plaintiff. Thus plaintiff would only be entitled to the balance amount.

6. For these reasons the suit is decreed ex parte against defendant No. 1 to a sum of Rs. 1,03,000/- but with costs of the entire amount so claimed int he plaint. If the amount is not paid within a month the plaintiff would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% p. from the date of the filing of the suit till the payment is made.