In this writ petition challenging an Insurance Ombudsman order dismissing a theft claim, the petitioner failed to appear when the matter was called. The court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution without engaging substantive legal issues.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010015512015
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3458/2015
BIMAL SEN
S/O SRI ANIL SEN, PERMANENT R/O VILL. PITARIA KHALA, P.S. PARAN RAJBARI, DIST- SOUTH TRIPURA, PRESENTLY R/O LALAMATI, P.O. BELTOLA, P.S. BASISTHA, GHY-28, ASSAM
VERSUS
INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN and 2 ORS, JEEVAN NIVASH, 5TH FLOOR, NEAR PANBAZAR OVER BRIDGE, S.S. ROAD, GHY-1
2:MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AMARAVATI PATH CHRISTANBASTI GHY-6 ASSAM 3:MANAGER SVC THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. SERVIE CENTRE DRO-1 REGIONAL OFFICE ULUBARI GHY-7 ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.D BHATTACHARJEE
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.R KATHKATIAR-2 and 3
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
06.12.2021
None has appeared for the petitioner today on call. Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 is present.
2.1 The petitioner was a registered owner of a vehicle [truck] bearing registration no. AS-25/B-8848 [‘the subject-vehicle’] and he obtained an Insurance Policy no. 321200/31/2010/6012 for the period from 06.01.2010 to 05.01.2011 for the subject-vehicle from the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The said insurance policy was for GVCV Public Carriers Package Other Than Three Wheelers Package Policy - Zone B. On 29.07.2010, he left the subject-vehicle at a garage named Surech Yadav, located at Beharbari, Guwahati for repairing along with his handyman viz. Md. Raja Ahmed. In the next morning i.e. 30.07.2010 when he went to the garage, he found the subject-vehicle as well as his handyman missing from the said garage. Suspecting commission of theft of the subject-vehicle by his handyman, he filed a First Information Report [FIR] before the Officer In-charge, Basistha Police Station on 05.08.2010 and the said FIR was registered as Basistha Police Case no. 376/2010 under Section 407, Indian Penal Code [IPC]. After causing investigation into the case, the Investigating Officer [I.O.] of the case submitted a final report being Final Report no. 100/2011 dated 31.03.2011 before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamurp [M], Guwahati. In the final report, the I.O. reported that the case under Sections 379/407, IPC was true but no clue of the accused was found. It was also reported that during the investigation, all efforts were made for recovery of the stolen truck as well as to apprehend the culprit. But, no traces were found of the stolen vehicle as well as of the culprit.
2.2 The petitioner has averred that the said final report was accepted by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati on 17.06.2011. The petitioner has also averred that on 23.07.2011, all the documents in original were submitted before the Oriental Insurance Company Limited for settlement of the theft claim [Claim no. 320011/30/2011/0360063]. The said claim was repudiated by the Regional Officer of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited at Guwahati and the said fact of repudiation was intimated to the petitioner by a letter dated 30.09.2011. In the said letter of repudiation, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited had reported that as the case was of criminal
Page No.# 3/3
breach of trust, the same was not covered by the insurance policy.
2.3 Aggrieved by the said repudiation of his claim, the petitioner approached the learned Insurance Ombudsman at Guwahati by filing a complaint being Complaint no. 11-G4-040/12-13. The learned Ombudsman heard both the sides and passed an order dated 25.06.2013 holding that the repudiation of the claim of the petitioner in respect of theft of the subject-vehicle was just and reasonable. By holding so, the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the same was treated as closed.
2.4 After the said order dated 25.06.2013, the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner, on 09.06.2015, assailing the order dated 25.06.2013.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Bimal Sen
Insurance Ombudsman
Jeevan Nivash
Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Manager SVC The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Manish Choudhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
