State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kuldeep Singh vs Magma Fin. Corp. Ltd. Kolkata & Anr. on 7 February, 2012
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
(A/11/2808)
Appeal No.527/2011
Instituted on : 26.09.2011
Kuldeep Singh, S/o Shri Parminder Singh,
R/o : Mahesh Nagar,
Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon (C.G.) .... Appellant.
Vs.
1. Magma Fin Corp Limited,
24, Park Street,
Kolkata 700 016 C.
2. Manager,
Royal Sundaram Allianz,
Plot No.D.N.62, Sector - 5, Salt Lake,
Calcutta .... Respondents.
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri Anurag Thaker, for appellant.
Shri S. Pandya, for respondent No.1.
Shri Manoj Prasad, for respondent No.2.
ORDER (ORAL)
DATED : 07/02/2012 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against, order dated 29.08.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), passed in Complaint Case No.15/2011, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein, against the Insurer and the Financer for seeking compensation, on // 2 // account of theft of the insured and financed vehicle, has been dismissed and the complainant was directed to pay cost of litigation Rs.1,000/- to each of the O.P.
2. Undisputedly, Truck bearing No.C.G.08-B-2106, was purchased by the complainant with the help of finance provided by respondent No.1 Magma Fin Corp. Limited and thereafter it was got insured with respondent No.2, Royal Sundram Allianz. The said vehicle was stolen by someone during the period of subsistence of the insurance policy, therefore, a complaint was filed before District Forum, for seeking compensation on account of theft of the insured vehicle.
3. The OPs in their reply denied their liability by saying that the insured vehicle was transferred by the complainant himself to one Shri Gurumail Singh and therefore, on the date of incident, the complainant was not having any insurable interest in the insured vehicle and does not come in the category of 'consumer'.
4. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by all parties, agreed with the defences raised by the respondents and dismissed the complaint by the impugned order.
5. After having heard the arguments advanced by all parties and having gone through the record of the District Forum, we are of the view that this appeal is without merits and is liable to be dismissed.
// 3 //
6. From the record of the District Forum, it is clear that in the complaint itself, it has been stated by the complainant/appellant that the insured vehicle i.e. Truck bearing No.C.G.08-B-2106, was handed over by the complainant/appellant himself to one Shri Gurmail Singh on 30.07.2008, with an intent to sell it under an Agreement of Sale of the vehicle. The price of the vehicle was fixed at Rs.10,00,000/-, though it has been stated in the complaint that as per terms agreed between the parties, the sell was to complete after full payment of Rs.10,00,000/-, but it has also been stated in the complaint that the said person Shri Gurumail Singh, was permitted to get the vehicle transferred in his name in all documents kept by Public Authorities. The document under which the insured vehicle was handed over to Shri Gurumail Singh, has also been brought on record. This is an Agreement to Sale on stamp paper of Rs.50/-. This document has been marked as Annexure - 21 by the District Forum. In this document, it has been stated that the said vehicle was handed over by the complainant/appellant to Shri Gurumail Singh for use and for taking benefit and Shri Gurumail Singh was having full authority to use the insured vehicle, as per his desire. Complainant and his LR's will never have any objection regarding use and occupation of the said vehicle by the Purchaser w.e.f. 30.07.2008. It has also been stated in this document that with effect from that date all liabilities regarding the insured truck, would be of purchaser Shri Gurumail Singh and he was // 4 // also permitted to get the vehicle transferred in his name. In the whole of the document, nothing has been stated as to whether right with regard to the vehicle was reserved by the complainant/appellant with him or that ownership of the vehicle was retained by him even after such transfer of the vehicle to Shri Gurumail Singh.
7. The truck in question was a movable property, therefore, as per provision of Section 20 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the transfer of movable property is complete when its possession is handed over to someone on some consideration, to be paid immediately or in future. If some amount of consideration is remain unpaid, even then ownership will be with the purchaser and not with the seller, merely a right to recover remaining amount of consideration would be there and the seller may also recover some compensation on account of delay in payment. But, so far as ownership of the movable property is concerned, it is immediately passes to the purchaser the moment when parties agreed to transfer it on some consideration and its possession is handed over.
8. In view of this clear legal position, the questioned vehicle was transferred to Shri Gurumail Singh w.e.f. 30.07.2008 and thereafter the complainant/appellant, was not having any right over the questioned vehicle apart from right of recovery of remaining part of the consideration.
// 5 //
9. The purchaser of the vehicle Shri Gurumail Singh, who was having possession of the vehicle, lodged First Information Report to the Police on 30.10.2009, which was the date of incident of theft of the vehicle. This document has been marked as document - 3 of the complainant. In that document also, it has been stated by the purchaser Shri Gurmail Singh that he had purchased the truck one year back from Shr Kuldeep Singh and was having its possession and had parked it at a particular placed from where it was stolen by someone. The Police after investigation also found that the said person Shri Gurmail Singh was the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time and the vehicle was stolen from his possession. This all material further corroborate the fact that ownership of the vehicle was already transferred to Shri Gurumail Singh one year back from the date of incident of theft of the vehicle, so, on the date of incident of theft, the appellant was not having any insurable rights on the stolen truck and so his claim was not maintainable and if the Insurance Company has repudiated his claim, then it committed no deficiency in service.
10. Same is the case of Financer/respondent No.1. Though truck was hypothecated with the Financer by an Agreement of Hypothecation but even then the vehicle was transferred by the complainant/appellant to a third person. The third person was also aware of the fact of hypothecation of the vehicle with the Financer as has been mentioned by him in the First Information Report that vehicle // 6 // was financed by Magma Fin Corp. Limited. In the Agreement of Sale Annexure 21, nothing has been stated as to what will happen regarding the rights of the Financer over the financed truck. It has simply been handed over to a third person and consideration as per the complainant/appellant was Rs.10,00,000/- It appears that the complainant/appellant was interested in taking double benefit i.e. benefit of finance amount, which was provided by the Finance Company and then to obtain full consideration of the truck from the purchaser. In these circumstances, there appears no deficiency in service on the part of Financer also.
11. In view of aforesaid, we do not find any error in the order recorded by the District Forum. The appeal being without any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice S.C. Vyas) (V.K. Patil)
President Member
/02/2012 /02/2012