Order No. 22 dt. 11/10/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a truck being no. WB - 41F - 7056 after availing of a commercial vehicle loan. The truck was hypothecated to Reliance Capital Ltd. The complainant after purchasing the said vehicle provided all the documents to Reliance General Insurance Ltd. The policy covered all the risk in the event of any kind of loss including the theft relating to the said hypothecated vehicle. The policy while remained valid the theft was committed. It was further stated that on 23/08/2012 at about 3.00 a.m. the appointed driver of the complainant left for Panchami with the said truck but the said truck instead of reaching Pachami the driver fled away with the truck. On the basis of the said fact the complainant lodged 2 written complains at Watgunge Police Station on 24/08/2012 and 28/08/2012 respectively. The complainant thereafter lodged claim to the insurance company, o.p. 2 but the claim was repudiated on 15/02/2013. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p.s for disbursement of compensation of Rs. 16,62,500/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- for damage and compensation.
O.p.s contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that o.p. 2 issued an insurance policy in respect of the vehicle no. WB - 41F - 7056. The o.p. 2 learnt from the complainant that on 23/08/2012 the driver fled away with the truck and the truck could not be traced out. A specific case was started under section 408 I.P.C. against the driver. The claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dt. 15/02/2013 on the ground that the driver being the employee of the complainant / insured had fled away with the vehicle and a case was started under section 408 I.P.C. which was a criminal breach of trust on the part of the said driver and in that case the policy is not covered for criminal breach of trust. On the basis of the said fact the o.p. 2, insurance company prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided :-
- Whether the vehicle was insured with the insurance company ?
- Whether the policy was valid at the relevant point of the alleged incident ?
- Whether the breach of trust committed by the employee can be considered as a ground for repudiation of the claim ?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company ?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with reasons :-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased a truck being no. WB - 41F - 7065 after availing of a commercial vehicle loan. The truck was hypothecated to Reliance Capital Ltd. The complainant after purchasing the said vehicle provided all the documents to Reliance General Insurance Ltd. The policy covered all the risk in the event of any kind of loss including the theft relating to the said hypothecated vehicle. The policy while remained valid the theft was committed. It was further stated that on 23/08/2012 at about 3.00 a.m. the appointed driver of the complainant left for Panchami with the said truck but the said truck instead of reaching Pachami the driver fled away with the truck. On the basis of the said fact the complainant lodged 2 written complains at Watgunge Police Station on 24/08/2012 and 28/08/2012 respectively. The complainant thereafter lodged claim to the insurance company, o.p. 2 but the claim was repudiated on 15/02/2013. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p.s for disbursement of compensation of Rs. 16,62,500/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- for damage and compensation.
Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. 2 argued that the o.p. 2 issued an insurance policy in respect of the vehicle no. WB - 41F - 7065. The o.p. 2 learnt from the complainant that on 23/08/2012 the driver fled away with the truck and the truck could not be traced out. A specific case was started under section 408 I.P.C. against the driver. The claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dt. 15/02/2013 on the ground that the driver being the employee of the complainant / insured has fled away with the vehicle and a case was started under section 408 I.P.C. which was a criminal breach of trust on the part of the said driver and in that case the policy is not covered for criminal breach of trust. On the basis of the said fact the o.p. 2, insurance company prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant being the owner of the vehicle insured the vehicle with the o.p.s. For purchasing the vehicle the complainant obtained loan from Reliance Captial Ltd. and the truck was hypothecated to Reliance Capital Ltd. It is undisputed fact that during the subsistence of the policy the truck was stolen as claimed by the complainant. Immediately after the said occurrence the complainant lodged 2 written complains at Watgunge Police Station on 24/08/2012 and 28/08/2012 respectively. The complainant thereafter lodged claim to the insurance company, o.p. 2. On the basis of the said fact a case was started under section 408 I.P.C., i.e. criminal breach of trust committed by the driver of the complainant. After the said fact the complainant lodged a claim to the insurance company but the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the insurer is not liable for the commission of an offence of criminal breach of trust committed by the employee of the insured. On the basis of the said fact the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the insurance company. Since the o.p. 2 considered the fact that in case of commission of an offence of criminal breach of trust committed by the employee of the insured and a case was started under section 408 I.P.C. which was a criminal breach of trust on the part of the said driver and in that case the policy is not covered for criminal breach of trust. Accordingly the claim of the complainant was repudiated as per the terms and conditions of the policy thereby we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and the complainant will not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is ordered,
that the case no. 474 of 2013 is dismissed on contest against the o.p.s without cost.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
