High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/19231/2019dismissed

Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Permanent Lok Adalat (Pus), Hisar And Others

2024-09-19Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj7 pages

! "!"# SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

PERMANENT LOK ADALAT (PUS), HISAR AND OTHERS

$ %&$ '( ' ) *****

" # $%& '

( %)&

( * + ,,,,, ( ' )+ , -./ %-- !

. *//0 1

2& 3 4' 5 - 1&4- - '

. 4'-

- 4 -- .

6 % '4 '- $ & 7-#16 8- -&3 -

!. 90:

$ - ! -

-- &- - ;

!. <. $

. 4 =&--'4'.

$ ) - 6

-2- % '5.--

(.6 & % '5

$ $

- 4 - '

$ ) -6 % '5

% & < !&$

-' 2

4 -

$ .

.--

(.6 & % '

$ &

$ /7//+ /+//7 6 &4$

& &4$ -

# ! --

- ' & 4'

6 % '

/+ . &

$ &$ &

. &

4-- 4- 4

- &

- 4 - ' =& 4 !4'

(.6 & % '

-' * % & -

!(. 6 & % '

- '# -

7//+ $ - =&

. 4 6

-1&4- - '

) 6

& $ & 4 $ & !

$ &$

!. - =&

.- .

$) -6 % ' 5

- =&

&-4

-3- $ 4 4'4 . 4 !-'

=&--'$

!4 < &$

! &

7//+

&4'% & -

& - $

$ &$

$ $ &$ 4' $ 4-& ) & $

!$&&

+ 6 -

% & -

&! &$ -

!. .

7 < 5 -1&4- - '

&- &$ - - 4 - ' ) 6

- 4 - '

7//+ 4

'. - ' $ &$

6 - '! 68 < - 2 . & While drawing our attention to the claim application of the petitioner, Counsel for the respondent No.1 to 3 stated that applicant has nowhere stated in his pleadings/claim application that he had no stake with the Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Rather, the applicant had laid his claim with both the insurers. Further submitted that policy can be cancelled only prior to claim and not afterwards i.e.. the policy has been cancelled on 05.01.2016 which is after

-4thought and respondent No.4 cannot escape from its liability. It is also settled law that the parties can not go beyond the pleadings and the honourable Supreme Court in the case Civil Appeal No.638 of 1980 dated 08.04.1987 AIR 1987 SC1242 has held that "It is well settled that in the absence of pleadings, evidences, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. It is also equally settled that no parry should be permitted to travel beyond the pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded in support of the case set up by it. It is also settled law that, as per GR 124 OF IMT, insurance policy cannot be cancelled after the claim is lodged for the incident Ld. In order to fortify their case Ld. Counsel of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd relied on the following case laws

# $ %&' ()*&)

Wherein it is held that Indian Motor Tariff Regulations are issued by the Tariff Committee they have statutory effect as law. Further, Respondent No. 1 to 3 maintained that they have rightly repudiated the claim vide their letter dt. 10.06.2016 (R11) taking the plea the petitioner obtained the insurance policy with respondent No. 4 earlier to the risk placed with them, and as per GR 24 of the. IMT when 2 policies are in existence on the same vehicle with identical cover, the policy cover which commenced later is to be cancelled by the insurer. To prove his case Counsel for the Respondent 4 tendered an Affidavit RW4/A of Sh. Bhanwar Govind Singh Chauhan alongwith copy of documents RW4/B to RW 4/J and closed the evidence. In support of his contention Ld. Counsel for Respondent 4 drawn our attention to the document R110 (page 1 to 8) wherein the petitioner on oath gave an undertaking to withdraw the claim and accordingly the

-5premium was refunded to the petitioner and the claim was closed as "No Claim". In his support the counsel of the respondent No. 4 relied on the case law Mohan Singh Vs. National Insurance Ltd decided by NCDRC (2013(2) Č.P.J. 566.

Apart from above, both the counsels of the insurers/respondents argued that the claimant delayed in intimating the loss and did not take precautions to keep the vehicle in safe custody. To1rebut their stand the petitioner counsel argued that as soon as the vehicle was stolen, he informed the police by VT and got REGITERED the FIR with the police. The documents were lying in the vehicle which were also stolen alongwith his vehicle. It took some time to know the policy particulars and address of the issuing offices to inform the incident.

On weighing the argument put forth by the Ld. Counsel of both the insurer/respondents, we have reached the conclusion that both the respondent insurance companies have not properly appreciated the intention contained in the GR 24. It is so provided in the GR 24 that policy cannot be cancelled once claim is reported on it, any undertaking/ agreement to cancel the policy by the respondent 4 are ultravires the aforesaid General Regulations contained in the Indian Motor tariff. It is also settled law that any contract/ agreement in violation of the law is void ab1initio. Accordingly, the cancellation of policy by respondent No.4 is quashed. Similarly, the respondent No.1 to 3 has tried to escape their liability on the plea that they are the later to issue the policy. They have not kept in mind the express Condition of CONTRIBUTION stipulated in their respective insurance policies which reads as under:

-6- +& &',& - ,. /&&.. &&. + - ,/

/ +0 In the light of the foregoing discussion and the law referred, the petitioner has been able to convince us that the repudiation of the claim by both the insurance companies/ respondents is illegal and against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy & Indian Motor Tariff. The case law referred by respondent No. 4 does not help him as the facts are distinguishable. Accordingly, the petition of the petitioner succeeds and the same is hereby partly allowed. An award is hereby passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents to pay a claim of Rs. 6. lakhs ((insured Declared Value) to the petitioner alongwith interest @ 9 per annum from the date of filling the petition till the realisation of amount. Besides, a compensation of Rs.

10,000/1(Rupees ten thousand) to the petitioner, on account of mental harassment and other expenses incurred by the petitioner. The awarded amount is to be apportioned between both the insurers of the vehicle on pro rata to the I.D.V. of their respective policies. The respondent No.4 shall be entitled to recover already refunded premfum to the petitioner from the share of their claim. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance."

4 &-'

4' 5 - 1&4- - '

6 ' - & # # &4=& ! &

- 4 - ' &

! &

' - '

& 4'

-7- '

.# 2

! &4=& =& 4'

# ! & $

- 4 - '

#-&

' - '

. $ &$- 4 4'

4 $- 4- 4 4& - 4 - '

? < 5 - 1&4- - '

. - # !

&!4

4' !& 4'

- =& '

4@ '

- & - @&

- @& &

8 5!-

0?> A . 4' 5

$ ' --!- '

-'4 . 6

. & . $

&4=& &

# ! --

&4-

&- -

4 - - - 4 -

. - ---' - 0 !

$ .

$ <

. *//0 %( >?/7/74' 5 -1&4- - '

$ ,( ' )/ ' $ +"!"# Vishal Sharma A # !C

DC( A

4- DC(