State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Satya Narain Meena vs The New India Insurance Co. on 20 January, 2009
Appeal No.1418/06 Satya Narain Meena V. The New India Insurance Co.Ltd. & anr. 20.1.09 Before: Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member
Shri Anil Bhatiya,counsel for the appellant Shri Rajeev Sharma,counsel for the respondents This appeal has been filed by the complainant Satya Narain Meena in capacity as the power of attorney holder of Sitaram Khandelwal against the order dated 15.6.2006 passed by the District Forum,Dausa in complaint no.26/06,by which the complaint of the complainant appellant was dismissed.
It arises in the following circumstances:
That the complainant appellant had filed a complaint against the respondents insurance company before the District Forum,Dausa on 27.2.06 interalia stating that car bearing no.RJ.14.2C.2998 was belonging to one Sita Ram Khandelwal,who had got insured that vehicle with the respondents insurance company for the period 7.8.04 to 6.8.05 for a sum of Rs.70,000/-. It was further stated in the complaint that on 8.11.05 the insured Sita Ram Khandelwal had authorised or had appointed Satya Narain Meena as a power of attorney holder for dealing with the said car and copy of the power of attorney had been filed. It was further stated in the complaint that the said vehicle was stolen away on 17.1.05 when the same was parked near Galta Gate,Delhi road,Jaipur for which a FIR bearing no.20/05 was lodged with the police station,Galta Gate,Jaipur.
(Note) There is no dispute on the point that the police had 2 submitted FR no.35/05 in respect of the vehicle that was stolen away and that FR had been accepted by the Learned Judicial Magistrate also.
It was further stated in the complaint that after the vehicle was stolen away,the complainant appellant had submitted a claim with the office of the respondents insurance company but that claim was repudiated through letter dated 18.1.06 on the ground that since the registered owner and the insured of the vehicle was Sitaram Khandelwal and since the claim had been filed by Satya Narain Meena and since Satya Narain Meena had no insurable interest,therefore,claim was not payable. Thereafter the present complaint was filed.
A reply was filed by the respondents insurance company before the District Forum,Dausa on 13.4.06 and in the reply the respondents insurance company had taken the same pleas which were taken in the repudiation letter dated 18.1.06 and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order dated 15.6.06 had dismissed the complaint interalia holding that Satya Narain Meena by whom the complaint was filed has no insurable interest in the vehicle.
Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by Satya Narain Meena on behalf of Sita Ram Khandelwal,the insured person and the main contention of the learned counsel for the complainant appellant is that since on the date of theft Sita Ram Khandelwal was the insured person and the registered owner of the vehicle and since he is a power of attorney holder of Sita Ram Khandelwal,therefore,for all purposes the main claimant of the claim would be Sita Ram Khandelwal and thus the dismissal of the complaint as well as repudiation of the claim were not justified and appeal be allowed.
3On the other hand,the learned counsel for the respondents insurance company has supported the impugned order.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In this case,there is no dispute on the point that Sitaram Khandelwal was the registered owner of the vehicle in question and the vehicle was insured with the respondents insurance company in favour of Sitaram Khandelwal for the relevant period for a sum of Rs.70,000/-. As stated above ,the said vehicle was stolen away on 17.1.05 and police had submitted FR and the same was accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate also. There is also no dispute on the point that Satya Narain Meena had nowhere stated that he had purchased the vehicle from Sitaram Khandelwal and further on file there is a power of attorney ex.4 executed by Sitaram Khandelwal in favour of Satya Narain Meena in respect of the vehicle in question.
When this being the position,we are at a loss to understand why the claim was repudiated by the respondents insurance company and why the complaint of the complainant appellant was dismissed by the District Forum.
Since Sitaram Khandelwal was the registered owner of the vehicle and the insured persion and complaint had been filed on his behalf by Satya Narain Meena,therefore,the main claimant in the present case would be Sitaram Khandelwal and thus the claim should have been decreed in favour of Sitaram Khandelwal for a sum of Rs.70,000/-,the amount of insurance policy.
For reasons as stated above,the findings recorded by the District Forum by which the complaint was dismissed could not be sustained 4 and the repudiation of the claim by the respondents insurance company could not be justified and this appeal deserves to be allowed.
The result is that this appeal filed by the complainant appellant is allowed,impugned order dated 15.6.06 passed by the District Forum,Dausa is quashed and set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant appellant is allowed in the manner that the respondents insurance company would pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- to Sitaram Khandelwal with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made alongwith Rs.5000/- as amount of cost of litigation.
Member President