Dismissed

New India Assurance Company Limited v. Furkan Hussain and Another

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2018WRIC/11519/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging a Permanent Lok Adalat award was dismissed. The High Court held that parking a transport truck outside a hotel for the driver's meal and rest does not violate insurance policy terms, finding no illegality or perversity in the PLA's decision to order payment.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the Permanent Lok Adalat award was dismissed with no merit found.

New India Assurance Company Limited Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 33

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11519 of 2018

¶4

Petitioner :- New India Assurance Company Limited Respondent :- Furkan Hussain And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vipin Chandra Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- Mohd Aadil Siddiqui

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vipin Chandra Dixit for the petitioner; Sri Mohd. Aadil Siddiqui for the respondent no.1; and perused the record.

¶7

The respondent No.1 was owner of Truck No. UP 21 AN2784 which was comprehensively insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd. (the petitioner), with an insurance value of Rs.14,44,000/-, covering cases of theft as well. The said vehicle got stolen in the night of 2/3.03.2016 in respect of which a first information report was lodged on 03.03.2016 with allegations that while the truck was parked outside Swagat Hotel at Dhampur, Haridwar Road, in the night, while the driver was sleeping, the truck was stolen. The matter was investigated and a final report was submitted. An insurance claim was made which was repudiated by the petitioner on the ground that the truck was left unattended without due precaution against theft. The owner, thereafter, filed a claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat (in short PLA), which was registered as Complaint Case No. 30 of 2017.

¶8

PLA made attempt to find solution by conciliation but as no settlement could take place by conciliation, PLA proceeded to adjudicate the claim. Ultimately, on the basis of material placed before it, PLA found that admittedly theft had taken place and the vehicle was insured against theft therefore the Insurance Company was liable to pay the insurance value of the truck. Accordingly vide impugned award dated 22.01.2018 it awarded a sum of Rs. 14,44,000 with interest.

¶9

Assailing the award dated 22.01.2018 passed by the PLA,

¶10

¶11

the present petition has been filed.

¶12

The sole ground on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed this petition is that admittedly the vehicle was parked outside the Hotel which was not a safe place and, therefore, adequate precaution was not taken to prevent theft and as such there had been breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, as a consequence whereof, the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim.

¶13

To ascertain whether there had been any cogent material to come to a conclusion that the terms and conditions of the policy were violated by the insured, the petitioner was required to file a supplementary-affidavit bringing on record the theft investigation report submitted by Sri S.K. Agarwal, the Enquiry Officer-Investigator, General Insurance Company, who had submitted his report in respect of the claim made against the petitioner.

¶14

By means of supplementary-affidavit filed today, the theft investigation report submitted by Sri S.K. Agarwal has been brought on record.

¶15

A perusal of the theft investigation report would reveal that the vehicle was being driven by a person who held a valid driving licence; that on the night of the incident, the driver who held a valid driving licence had taken the truck from Moradabad to Dhampur and on way had parked the vehicle at Swagat Hotel, Dhampur, Haridwar Road where the driver decided to have his meals and rest; that the driver had dinner at the Hotel and after dinner took a nap after having locked the vehicle; that when he woke up, the vehicle was not found; and, thereafter, search was made and information was given to the police. The Investigator had went to the spot and found that Swagat Hotel, Dhampur did exist on the main Dhampur-Haridwar road; and the owner of the hotel also confirmed about the theft. The

¶16

¶17

conclusion drawn by the investigator was that the vehicle was insured; the place of theft, as per the statement, was found to be correct; the vehicle belonged to its owner as per registration certificate; the FIR was lodged with the police; that one key of the vehicle was provided by the insured by stating that the second key had been lost long time back; that there did not appear any mala fide intention on the part of anyone; that final report was submitted by the police indicating that there was no hope of recovery of the vehicle in near future; that moral hazards of insured was beyond doubt; that there does not seem to be any negligence on the part of the insurer at the time of insurance of the vehicle; that the driver who was driving the vehicle on the date of the incident held a valid driving license and had duly parked the vehicle before theft; and that the fitness and permit of the vehicle were valid on the date of theft of the vehicle thereby confirming that the vehicle was in road worthy condition at the time of insurance and theft of the vehicle.

¶18

The report of the Investigator nowhere specifies as to what term and condition of the Insurance Policy was violated/ breached.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to argue that since the vehicle was parked outside the Hotel, which by its very nature is an unsafe place, the driver ought to have remained inside the vehicle but since the driver did not remain inside the vehicle there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim.

¶20

I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

The contention that parking the vehicle outside the Hotel by itself was breach of the terms and conditions of the

¶22

¶23

Insurance Policy, cannot be accepted because the vehicle concerned was a transport vehicle. When a transport vehicle is on the move, the vehicle would have to be parked at places such as 'Dhaba' or a Hotel to enable the driver to have his meals or to take rest for a while because it is not expected that a driver like a Robot would be driving all 24 hours. Under the circumstances, if the driver had parked the vehicle outside the Hotel to have his night meal and thereafter take some rest to recharge himself for another journey, it cannot be said that the terms and conditions of the Insurance had been violated. A person gets his vehicle insured only to have peace of mind. If the driver had locked the vehicle and had entered a Hotel for taking rest, it cannot be said that he violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy by not parking the vehicle inside an enclosure or at a place from where it could never be stolen. Otherwise also, Truck is a huge vehicle for which, ordinarily, enclosures are not available in hotels therefore they would have to be parked road-side.

¶24

Under the circumstances, there is no perversity or illegality in the award passed by the PLA holding the insurance company (the petitioner) liable.

¶25

Further, the amount awarded is admittedly the insurance value of the vehicle and it is not in dispute that on the date of the incident the insurance policy was in operation, I, therefore, find no merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed .

¶26

Order Date :- 18.4.2018 Sunil Kr Tiwari

New India Assurance Company Limited v. Furkan Hussain and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New India Assurance Company Limited v. Furkan Hussain and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. and Others Vs Santosh Kumar Verma and Others

Vipin Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kadeer Ahamad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Aneesh Vs Smt. Seema Noor

Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs the Insurance Ombudsman and Another

Sanjay Vs State of U.P. and Another