Allowed

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC22 Jun 2023Cr.M.P./437/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against an insurance company for failing to pay the balance insurance claim. The High Court held the complaint was malicious and devoid of criminal element, representing only a civil consumer dispute.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 16.01.2010 and the order dated 19.10.2011 are hereby quashed.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs State… — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 437 of 2012

¶3

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, through its Manager (Legal) Sneha Singhania ..... …

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand.

¶7

Uma Sharma

¶8

@ Uma Kant Sharma ..... … Opposite Parties --------

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶10

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P.

¶11

¶12

05/ 22.06.2023 Heard Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶13

On 24.04.2019 when the matter was taken up, nobody had appeared for the O.P. No. 2 and the matter was adjourned. Identical is the situation today, as nobody has responded on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 in spite of repeated calls, that’s why this petition is being heard in absence of O.P. No. 2.

¶14

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 16.01.2010, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 406 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with Complaint Case No. 3845 of 2009, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur. Further prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 19.10.2011, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Cr. Rev. No. 233 of 2010, whereby he has been pleased to dismiss the revision application as barred by limitation.

¶15

The complaint case was filed by the O.P. No. 2 stating therein that he is the registered owner of a Pickup Van bearing registration no. JH05P5685 of Tata Motors bearing Model No. 207. This vehicle was insured with the petitioner-Company on 27.04.2008 which was valid for the period 30.05.2008 to 29.05.2009 bearing Policy No. 3003/53945193/00/000. The vehicle met with an accident on 08.06.2008 at Kokar, Ranchi when a cow came towards the vehicle and in order to save the same, the same had collided with the tree.

¶16

It is further stated that the vehicle was inspected by the officer of the petitioner-Company and the loss was assessed at Rs.2,81,089.00 but it is stated that out of that amount, only

¶17

-2-

¶18

Rs.1,92,000/- was paid, due to which, opposite party no. 2 is not able to get his vehicle released from Budia Agency Private Limited.

¶19

It has also been stated that as the remaining amount of Rs.1,21,000/- has not been paid, he has reasons to believe that accused has no intention to pay the said amount and thereby have caused a wrongful loss to the complainant.

¶20

Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that against the order of cognizance, the petitioner has moved before the learned revisional court, wherein the revisional court has dismissed the revision, only on the ground of limitation and not on the merit. He submits that thereafter the present petition has been filed. He further submits that O.P. No. 2 has insured his vehicle with the petitioner company and in course of time, the vehicle met with an accident and for that he has claimed the insurance and the surveyor of the company has assessed the loss of Rs. 2,81,089.00. He submits that after deducting the depreciation of the parts, only the amount of Rs. 1,92,000/- has been paid by the petitioner company and for recovery of remaining amount of Rs. 1,21,000/- the present complaint has been filed by the O.P. No. 2. He further submits that the learned court has also taken the cognizance against the petitioner.

¶21

Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the complaint case has been filed against the petitioner and the learned court has taken the cognizance against the petitioner.

¶22

In view of the above, the court has perused the contents of the complaint petition and finds that admittedly the surveyor of the company has assessed the loss of Rs. 2,81,089/-, however, after deducting the depreciation of the parts, the amount of Rs. 1,92,000/- has been paid by the petitioner company and for recovery of remaining amount of Rs. 1,21,000/- the present complaint has been filed by the O.P. No. 2. Further if the O.P. No. 2 was aggrieved with the deduction of Rs. 1,21,000/-, it cannot be said that any criminality on part of the petitioner company has been made out and at best, it can only be said that there is deficiency in service and for that the O.P. No. 2 was having the remedy before the District Consumer Forum.

¶23

In that view of the matter, the court finds that maliciously the complaint has been filed against the petitioner. As such, the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 16.01.2010, by

¶24

-3-

¶25

which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 406 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with Complaint Case No. 3845 of 2009, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur as well as the order dated 19.10.2011, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Cr. Rev. No. 233 of 2010, are hereby, quashed.

¶26

This petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶27

Amitesh/-

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Kumar Agarwalla Alias Manish Kumar Agarwala Alias Manish Agarwal Vs Salini Agarwalla Alias Salini Agarwalla

Ajit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Sanjay Kakkar Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Babita Gupta Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Smt Usha Devi and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.