[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ms The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd And ... vs Ajit Singh And Another on 20 March, 2026
CWP-5258-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
117 CWP-5258-2026
Date of Decision: 20.03.2026
M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another ...Petitioners
Versus
Ajit Singh and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: - Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the petitioners
(through video conferencing)
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of award dated
28.07.2023 whereby learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Faridabad (for short
'PLA') has directed it to pay compensation of ₹10 Lakhs along with interest
to the respondent.
2. Respondent No.1 got his truck, make Tata, bearing Registration
No.HR-38T-0167, insured from the petitioner. As per terms and conditions
of the policy, the insured was entitled to compensation of ₹10 Lakhs in case
of loss of vehicle. As per respondent, the insured vehicle was robbed by
miscreants on 26.05.2015. He lodged FIR on 30.05.2015 under Section 379
of Indian Penal Code, 1860. He served notice upon the petitioner seeking
compensation on account of loss of vehicle. The petitioner rejected his claim
on the ground that there is difference in the cause of loss of vehicle disclosed
in the FIR and claim application. He approached learned PLA under Section
22C of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short '1987 Act'). Learned
1 of 4
PLA by impugned award has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of ₹ 10
Lakhs along with interest.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per FIR
there was theft whereas respondent submitted before petitioner as well as
learned PLA that his vehicle was robbed.
4. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
5. Relevant extracts of the findings recorded by learned PLA read
as:
"15. We have heard the arguments of both the parties.
Pursued the record. The applicant has pleaded that his truck
TATA LPT Turbo Truck No HR-38 T-0167 was snatched by
some miscreants on 26.05.2015 at 8:30 Pm, while the truck
was returning from Kanpur to Faridabad. The IDV of the
truck was Rs 10,00,000/-. The above truck was insured at that
time from respondent. The claim for reimbursement filed by
applicant was rejected by the respondent on the ground that
the applicant has not disclosed the true facts to the insurance
company. In FIR recorded at the police station, the applicant
has informed the police that the above vehicle was stolen by
some thieves at the above mentioned date time, and place.
The above report is annexure A-7. The respondent has
repudiated the claim only on this ground. The respondent has
admitted that the above truck was insured with the insurance
co. at the given date and time. The above vehicle has been
lost. Thus the respondent has in their reply hinged only on
this point. They have mentioned that in the claim form the
applicant has mentioned that the criminals robbed the above
vehicle from the driver while in FIR it is mentioned that the
above vehicle was stolen by some persons. The applicant has
explained that at the police station, the police officers
mitigated the offence of robbery into theft. The applicant has
no control over the police, so if the police officers have
changed the nature of offence the applicant can't be blamed
for it. The applicant in his claim form which is paper no Ex
2 of 4
A-6 has narrated that the vehicle in question was not stolen
but snatched.
16. The respondent investigator investigated the
occurrence and filed the report. During the investigation
statement of applicant Ajit Singh was recorded which is Ex-R-
8. In this statement the applicant has stated that the vehicle
was robbed. The investigator's report is Ex R-12. Only on the
basis of this report, the respondent has repudiated the claim.
In reply no other ground for repudiation has been mentioned
except this one of robbery/ theft. During the argument it was
argued by the applicant that the vehicle had been lost.
Whether this loss is due to robbery or theft, it is immaterial,
because the applicant has lost his vehicle. The insurance
company is liable to compensate the loss of the vehicle to the
applicant. This is a deficiency in service on part of the
respondent in not reimbursing the loss of the vehicle to the
applicant. So in conclusion the application has to be allowed.
The IDV of the vehicle was Rs 10,00,000/- (Ex A-2). So the
respondent is liable to pay the above amount with 7% interest
from the date of filling of this application i.e 03.03.2017.
17. The respondent has claimed that so far they have not
repudiated the claim and the application is premature. But it
is also true that the respondent has not paid the claim amount
so far after a long gap of about 8 years. So the applicant for
redressal of grievance has come to the Court for which he is
entitled. Therefore the application deserves merit and is
liable to be allowed. The respondent is liable to pay Rs
10,00,000/- to the applicant with 7% interest from 01.03.2017
which is the date of filing of this application. The respondent
has not raised any other point. So the application has to be
allowed."
6. From the perusal of record, it is evident that there is no dispute
with respect to insurance of the vehicle. There is further no dispute with
respect to loss of vehicle. The petitioner is attempting to deflect from its
responsibility on the sole ground that as per FIR, there was theft whereas
3 of 4
complainant was claiming that his vehicle was robbed. Whether there was
theft or robbery, however, there was loss of vehicle. The petitioner neither
before the learned PLA nor this Court has produced any evidence to the
effect that there was no loss of vehicle. Had petitioner been playing
mischief, he would have pleaded before learned PLA that there was theft of
his vehicle.
7. In the backdrop, this Court does not find any factual or legal
infirmity in the impugned award dated 28.07.2023 warranting interference.
The petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
20.03.2026
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
