RSA No.866 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 866 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.5.2011 Samta Hundai etc. .....Appellants Versus The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate,for Mr.Vikram Singh,Advocate for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-Insurance Company had filed a suit for recovery. The case of the plaintiff-Insurance Company, in brief, was that M/s Arihant Trading Company,Israna Mandi, Panipat through its partner Usha Jain had insured the Santro Car Model 2000 bearing registration No. HR-06K-0336 with the plaintiff vide insurance policy for the period 4.7.2004 to 3.7.2005 for a sum of ` 3 lacs. The said car met with an accident on 16.8.2004 and was handed over to defendants No. 2 and 3 for repair on 19.8.2004. On 25.8.2004, Mahender Jain, husband of the insured went to respondent No.2 for delivery of the Car but found that the same had not been properly repaired by defendants No. 2 and 3 and left the Car in the workshop for its proper repair. However, during the night, the Car was stolen along with other goods belonging to defendant No.2. In this regard FIR No. 304 dated 31.8.2004 was registered with the Police Station RSA No.866 of 2011 (O&M) 2 City Panipat. An intimation was sent to the plaintiff-Company on 3.9.2004 qua theft of the Car.. As per the report of the surveyor, the market value of the Car was assessed at ` 2,75,000/-. The defendants were liable to pay the market value of the Car to the insured of the plaintiff-company. An untraced report was submitted by the police after investigation in the criminal case. As per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the insured transferred the car in favour of the plaintiff-company. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that Mahender Jain had entrusted the Car to the answering defendants for repair. As per terms and conditions of the workshop printed on the backside of the job car, the vehicle was to be repaired and stored at the sole risk and responsibility of the customer. The plaintiff being insurer of the vehicle was bound to indemnify the insured. Defendants were not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff- company. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 3,62,500/- from the defendants?OPP 2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest?OPP 3.Whether the plaintiff's suit has not been filed by a competent person?OPP 4.Whether the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable ?OPD 5.Relief” The Additional Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 22.2.2010, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said RSA No.866 of 2011 (O&M) 3 judgment and decree, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.2010 by the Additional District Judge. Hence,the present appeal by the defendants. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the suit filed by the Insurance Company was not maintainable. The Insurance Company could have filed the suit in the name of the insured. In the present case, admittedly, the Car in question had been entrusted to the defendants by the owner for repair and the same was stolen. The Car in question was insured with the plaintiff qua theft. The Insurance Company filed the suit seeking recovery of the amount paid to the insurer by it on account of the theft of the Car. The plea of the defendants was that in terms of the conditions of the job car, the defendants were not liable to pay any amount on account of the theft of the vehicle. The vehicle had been repaired and stored at risk and responsibility of the customer. The said plea of the defendants is without any force. Once the car in question was handed over to the defendants for repair, it became the duty of the defendants to return the car to the owner after due repair and keep it in safe custody till it was returned to the owner. The insured has given a subrogation letter in favour of the plaintiff and it is also the case of the plaintiff that owner had transferred the Car in its name. Hence, the plaintff became entitled to file a suit for recovery against the defendant. It has been held in Aitco Movers Pvt. Ltd. v. United India insurance Co.Ltd. And others 2007ACJ 1620. Paras 17 and 18 of RSA No.866 of 2011 (O&M) 4 the judgment read as under:- “17. The learned lower appellate court had also recorded the same finding, after examining the evidence led by the parties that the owners had executed the letter of subrogation, Exh.P21, in favour of the insurance company and,therefore, the insurance company had stepped into the shoes of the consigner/owner. Therefore, the letter of subrogation,which amounted to deed of assignment, is clearly proved by the respondent insurance company by which the insurance company stepped into the shoes of the owner/consigner. Therefore,Prakash Roadlines' case, (2000)10 SCC 64, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. 18. In view of the discussion held above, it is held that since the respondent insurance company was the assignee of the rights of the owners,therefore, it was entitled to file the suit for recovery in its own name and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the present case” Thus, the insurance Company had stepped into the shoes of the insured and the suit filed by the Insurance Company was maintainable. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge May 31,2011 arya