Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 925 (PNJ)

National Insurance Company v. Baldhir Singh

2014-05-29

ARUN PALLI, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

body2014
Judgment Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CJ, (Oral) CM Nos.2124 to 2126, of 2014 Allowed subject to just exceptions. LPA-927-2014 Appellant-Insurance Company seeks to assail the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.2.2014, which repelled the challenge to the award dated 18.12.2013 of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Rupnagar (Mohali). The insurance policy is not in dispute. The premium being paid is, again, not in dispute. The car of respondent No.1, being a Maruti Swift VDI, was insured for Rs.4,20,000/. On 11.5.2011, at about 9.30 p.m., the vehicle was stolen from the market of Phase 3BII, Mohali. The case of the owner of the insured car is that after parking the car near Katani Sweets, he purchased Kulfi from a near by Rehri and when he was about to start his vehicle, the Kulfi vendor called him to exchange the currency note of Rs.20/. As he stepped out to exchange the currency note, two young boys, taking advantage of the situation, started his car and took it towards the residential area. Immediately, police number 100 was called. The car was, however, never found. The defence taken by the appellant-Insurance Company was that the owner of the insured car ought not to have left the key of the car in the key slot, as that amounted to failure to take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss and, thus, was in breach of condition No.4 of the insurance policy. The learned Single Judge did not agree with the plea of the Insurance Company where the award given by the Permanent Lok Adalat was sought to be assailed. This finding is based on the premise that the owner of the insured car conducted himself in normal fashion, in the given facts of the case. We are in complete agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Permanent Lok Adalat as well as the learned Single Judge. It is not as if the owner of the insured car left the key and abandoned the car, giving an opportunity to the thieves to take it away. The owner of the insured car was very much there. He was in the process of moving away when he was called to exchange a currency note given by him to the seller of the Kulfi. He stepped out to exchange the currency note when the thieves took advantage of the situation. The owner of the insured car was very much there. He was in the process of moving away when he was called to exchange a currency note given by him to the seller of the Kulfi. He stepped out to exchange the currency note when the thieves took advantage of the situation. It is not a case of lack of any care on the part of the owner of the insured vehicle. This is not a negligent or deliberate act, which would absolve the Insurance Company of its liability. If we may say so, it is a third tier of scrutiny and the appellant has enjoyed the luxury of filing the present appeal, being a Government Insurance Company. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.