Punjab-Haryana High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited ... vs Permanent Lok Adalat And Ors on 9 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117677
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
149
CWP-22794-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 09.09.2024
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others
...Petitioners
VERSUS
Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Camp Court at Narnaul and
others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate with
Mr. Rishabh Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. Challenge in the present petition is to the award dated
22.01.2024 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services),
Camp Court at Narnaul, whereby the application No.280 of 2019 filed by
respondent No.2-insured/applicant has been allowed and the petitioner-
insurance company has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.30 lakhs (IDV of
the vehicle) along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of
the application till realization alongwith compensation of Rs.31,000/- on
account of harassment and litigation expenses to respondent No.2-applicant.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
contends that respondent No.2-insured had preferred the above application
before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) pleading that he
was the registered owner of vehicle Trailer bearing registration No.HR-66B-
2617, which was insured with the petitioner-Insurance Company vide
insurance policy No.33180131180100002794 valid w.e.f. 17.06.2018 to
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117677
149 CWP-22794-2024 (O&M)
16.06.2019 and had paid the premium of Rs.28,208/- at Narnaul. One of the
tyres of the vehicle got punctured in the night on 15.01.2019 and that
respondent No.2-applicant left the vehicle parked at the place, where the tyre
was punctured, so as to get the tyre repaired. When respondent No.2 reached
back on the spot at about 1.40 AM, he found that the vehicle was missing.
He gave information in this regard to the Police on number 100 and an FIR
No.15 dated 16.01.2019 under Section 379 IPC was registered immediately
at Police Station Kasola, Rewari. The Insurance Company was also
informed regarding theft of the vehicle. The said FIR was investigated into
and an untrace report was eventually submitted by the Investigating Agency.
The petitioner-insurance company however repudiated the claim of
respondent No.2 on the ground of breach of terms & conditions of the Policy
for having left the vehicle unattended. The application was thus filed before
Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Narnaul.
3. Upon notice, the petitioner-insurance company also filed its
reply reiterating the facts and claimed that the repudiation of the claim of
claimant-respondent No.2 was appropriate and in accordance with the
essential terms & conditions of the Policy.
4. On failure of the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement
before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), adjudication
under Section 22C(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was
undertaken.
5. The parties led their respective evidence before the Permanent
Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) and produced the necessary documents
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117677
149 CWP-22794-2024 (O&M)
including the copy of the FIR No.15 dated 16.01.2019 and the copy of the
untrace report as Ex. P-3 and P-4 respectively. On consideration of the
same, the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) allowed the said
application in favour of respondent No.2-insured and recorded as under:-
"14. In the present case it is the admission of
respondents No.1 to 3 that the applicant is the owner of the
vehicle bearing registration No.HR-66B-2617. It is also the
admission of the respondents No.1 to 3 that the aforesaid
vehicle was got insured by the applicant from the respondents
No.1 & 2 through respondent No.3 for Rs.30,00,000/- and had
paid the premium amount of Rs.28,208/-. It is also not
disputed by respondents No.1 to 3 that at the time of theft of
the vehicle the insurance was in existence.
15. The claim case of the applicant was closed by the
respondents No.1 & 2 on the fact that the applicant had
withdrawn his claim case and, therefore, the same was closed
as 'No claim' and this fact is mentioned in the letter Ex.P8
issued by the respondents No. 1 & 2 to the applicant.
16. We have perused the letter Ex.P8 wherein the date
of the alleged letter written by the applicant to the respondents
No.1 & 2 is nowhere mentioned. The date is blank. No other
documentary evidence has been produced by the respondents
No.1 & 2 to substantiate the fact that the applicant had
withdrawn his claim application. Rather from the perusal of
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117677
149 CWP-22794-2024 (O&M)
the letter Ex.P8 it reveals that the applicant had submitted his
claim with respondents No.1 & 2. There was no occasion for
the applicant to withdraw his claim. All this shows that the
respondents No.1 & 2 have closed the claim case of the
applicant unnecessarily and without any reason.
17. The argument of the learned counsel for the
respondents No.1 to 3 that the applicant had left the vehicle
unattended and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for any
claim, is also not convincing. In the letter Ex.P8 by virtue of
which the claim case of the applicant was closed. It is
nowhere mentioned that the claim of the applicant was closed
because of the reason that the applicant had left his vehicle
unattended. Rather from the perused of the documents
produced by the applicant it is proved on file that one of the
tyre of the vehicle got punctured and the applicant had left the
vehicle at the spot and went to get the tyre repair of puncture.
There was no occasion for the applicant to take the vehicle
alongwith him. There was no negligence on the part of the
applicant to left the vehicle at the spot. The applicant had
informed the police just after the theft on 100 number which
is proved from the perusal of Ex.P6 and in this regard a
F.I.R. was also registered in the Police Station, Kasola,
Rewari. It is also proved on file from the perusal of the
document Ex.P4 that the police could not trace the vehicle
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117677
149 CWP-22794-2024 (O&M)
and had submitted an untrace report. All this shows that the
vehicle in question had been stolen without any fault on the
part of the applicant and the police could not trace out the
vehicle, therefore, the respondents No.1 to 3 are liable to pay
the insured amount to the applicant but instead of paying the
insured amount to the applicant the claim case of the
applicant was closed by respondents No.1 & 2 illegally and
un- authorizedly. This act and conduct on the part of the
respondents No. 1 & 2 comes within the ambit of deficiency in
service.
18. The applicant has already repaid the entire loan
amount to respondent No.4 and in this regard the respondent
No.4 had issued 'No Objection Certificate' in favour of the
applicant and this fact is proved from the perusal of the letter
Ex.P10.
19. In view of our above discussion and observation
the present application, filed by the applicant, is hereby
allowed against the respondents No.1 & 2 and dismissed
against the respondents No.3 & 4. The respondents No.1 & 2
are directed to pay Rs.30,00,000/- (IDV of the vehicle) to the
applicant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date
of filing of the present application till realization and to pay
an amount of Rs.31,000/- to the applicant as compensation on
account of harassment and litigation expenses. The
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117677
149 CWP-22794-2024 (O&M)
respondents No.1 & 2 are further directed to pay the aforesaid
amount to the applicant within three months from today
positively failing which the respondents No.1 & 2 shall be
liable to pay the aforesaid amount to the applicant alongwith
interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the
present application till realization. The applicant is directed to
hand over all the original documents of the vehicle to
respondents No.1 & 2 if any.
20. This award is passed accordingly. File be
consigned to the record-room after due compliance."
6. Aggrieved thereof, the present writ petition has been filed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-insurance company has
vehemently argued that the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat
(Public Utility Services) suffers from failure to appreciate the facts and the
position in law. He contends that respondent No.2-insured violated the
essential terms and conditions of the policy and had left the vehicle
unattended which facilitated the occurrence of theft of the vehicle. The
second argument which has been raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that during the course of assessment of the claim, respondent
No.2-insured had agreed to accept a sum of Rs.26,66,400/- as full and final
settlement of all the claims. He contends that the said evidence has also not
been taken on record by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services)
while allowing the application of respondent No.2-insured. No other
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117677
149 CWP-22794-2024 (O&M)
argument has been raised or judgment cited by him.
8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and have gone through the documents available on record
and also the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility
Services).
9. So far as the first contention with respect to respondent No.2-
insured being in breach of the essential terms & conditions of the insurance
policy is concerned, the Policy's condition No.5 had been extracted in the
repudiation letter dated 02.08.2019 which read thus:-
"xxxx
the insured shall take all responsible (reasonable) steps to
safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage and to maintain it
in efficient condition. In the event of any accident or
breakdown, the vehicle insured shall not be left unattended
without proper precautions being taken to prevent for the
damage or loss.
xxxx"
10. I find that the obligation of an insured is only to take all
reasonable steps and not an extreme precautionary step. The reasonable steps
have to be seen from the facts of each case. The surrounding circumstances
and events are essential to determine what would be a reasonable precaution.
The parameters of normal circumstances cannot be applied in odd or
emergent circumstances for applying the test of "reasonableness". It was a
specific case of respondent No.2-insured that the tyre of the vehicle had been
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117677
149 CWP-22794-2024 (O&M)
punctured and that the same had to be repaired. The same being a heavy
multi-axle trailer, it could not have been taken to any other place in
punctured condition. The Driver, at late hours in the intervening night, had
to take the tyre all by himself for getting it repaired. It could not be expected
at that hour of night that he would arrange for some person, from a third
place, to stand by the vehicle till such time he could search for the puncture
shop and is able to come back after getting the tyre repaired. It appears from
the sequence of facts that the puncture to the tyre happened in the late hours
at night, after the vehicle had been hired for delivery of a consignment, and
that he could come back at the spot only at 1.40 A.M., which is well past
mid-night. Under the said circumstance, a hyper technical enforcement of
condition No.5 of the policy would be nothing more than a travesty of
justice and only a means to deny the benefits for what an insurance policy
was actually purchased. So far as the second contention of respondent No.2-
insured having agreed to settle all the claims for a sum of Rs.26,66,400/- is
concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner-insurance company is not in a
situation to rebut that such evidence had not been led by the petitioner-
insurance company before the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility
Services). He fairly concedes that the insurance company never accepted
the above offer. Having chosen not to accept such consent given by the
insured, it would not be permissible for the petitioner-insurance company to
now claim that respondent No.2-insured has to still accept the initial
settlement which he proposed.
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117677
149 CWP-22794-2024 (O&M)
11. In view of the observations recorded above and noticing the
findings recorded by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services),
Camp Court at Narnaul, I find that there is no illegality, impropriety,
perversity or mis-appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. High
Court, in exercise of its powers of judicial review, does not sit as a Court of
appeal against the decision taken by the competent authorities and substitute
its own opinion for that of the competent Court. The present writ petition
is accordingly dismissed in limine. The award dated 22.01.2024 passed by
the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Camp Court at Narnaul
is affirmed.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
09.09.2024 JUDGE
Mangal Singh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
9 of 9
