LexNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus NITIN KHANDELWAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 1047
--{
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
A
v.
NITIN KHANDELWAL
(Civil Appeal No. 3409 of 2008)
..
MAY 8, 2008
B
A.
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.]
Insurance - Theft of insured vehicle - Insurance claim -
Rejection of on the ground that use of the vehicle was contrary
to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy- Complaint c
- District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum upholding the
rejection - Appellate as well as Revisional Court granting the
claim on non-standard basis - On appeal, held: Insurance
Company is liable to indemnify the claimant - In the case of
> .
-+
theft of vehicle, breach of condition is not germane.
D
The vehicle of t'1e respondent was stolen. He filed
an insurance claim which was denied by the appellant-
insurance Company on the ground that the respondent
by using the vehicle for commercial use, violated the terms
...
and conditions of the insurance policy. Respondent filed E
a complaint before District Disputes Redressal Forum
wherein rejection of the claim by the insurance company
was upheld. In appeal, State Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission held that the claim was required to be settled
t
on non-standard basis and thus the claimant was entitled F
to 75% of the insured sum. In revision National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the order of the
State Commission. Hence the present appeal.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: The view taken by the State Commission
, _.\
cannot be faulted and the National Commission has
correctly upheld the said order of the State Commission.
In the case in hand, the vehicle, has been snatched or
1047
H
1048
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 7 S.C.R
A
stolen. In the case of theft of vehicle breach of condition
is not germane. In case of theft of vehicle, nature of use of
the vehicle cannot be looked into and the Insurance
Company cannot repudiate the claim on that basis. The
appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the
B owner of the vehicle when the insurer has obtained
comprehensive policy for the loss caused to the insurer.
The State Commission allowed the claim only on non-
standard basis, which has been upheld by the National
Commission. [Paras 13,14 and 15] [1052-G, 1052-C,F; D,E]
C
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai and Ors. 2006
(4) sec 250 - distinguished.
Jitendra Kumar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
2003 (6) SCC 420; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran
D Singh and Ors. 2004 (3) SCC 297 - referred to.
CIVILAPPELLATE JLIRISDCTION: Civil Appeal No. 3409
of 2008.
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.9.2006 of the
E
National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New
Delhi in R P No. 2638/2006.
S.L. Gupta, Vishnu Kr. Sharma and Goodwill lndeevar for
the Appellant.
Anish Kumar Gupta, Deep Shikha Bharti, Rita Gupta and
F
Priyanka for the Respondent.
""
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted.
G
2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 21 51
September, 2006 passed by the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as
,_
the National Commission) in R. P. No. 2638 of 2006.
3. Brief facts of the case which are necessary to dispose
H of the matter are recapitulated a::; under:-
r;
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. NITIN
1049
-1
KHANDELWAL [DALVEER BHANDARI, J]
4. The respondent Nitin Khandelwal had purchased the A
vehicle Mahindra Scorpio bearing No.HR-18-8743 on
28.5.2003. On 27.9.2003, he had sent his vehicle to bring his
children from Jaipur. On the way, some unknown people stopped
the vehicle, tied the driver and dumped him on the way and
r
snatched away the vehicle. The report was lodged by the driver B
at the police station and the appellant Insurance Company was
informed of the same. Thereafter, on 2.10.2003, the respondent
filed an insurance claim, which was rejected by the Insurance
Company.
5. The appellant's version was that the vehicle was being c
used as a taxi and the four passengers had hired the vehicle for
going from Gwalior to Karoli and those passengers, on the way,
snatched the vehicle from the driver. The vehicle was insured
for personal use and it was being used by the respondent as a
.. t
taxi. According to the appellant, the respondent had violated D
the terms of the insurance policy and, therefore, rejected the
claim. The respondent filed ·a complaint before the DistrictExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.