National Consumer Disputes Redressal
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Maha Singh on 7 May, 2014
NATIONAL
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW
DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 2057 OF 2012
(From the order dated 10.02.2012
in Appeal No. 155/2012 of Haryana State
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Panchkula)
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Through Manager
Regional Office-1, 5th Floor,
Jeevan Bharati
Building,
Connaught Circus,
New Delhi 110 001 Petitioner/Opposite
Party (OP)
Versus
Maha Singh S/o
Shri Gopala
R/o
Village Bhaini Jatan
Tehsil Bawanikhera
Ditrict Bhiwani, Haryana Respondent/Complainant
BEFORE
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.
CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
HONBLE DR.
B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Maibam N. Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ajit
Kumar Pande, Advocate
PRONOUNCED ON 7th
May, 2014
O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 10.2.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 155 of 2012 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Maha Singh by which, appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed against the order of District Forum allowing complaint.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondents tractor HR 21A 6330 was insured by OP/petitioner for a period of one year from 2.5.2002 to 1.5.2003. Complainant sold this tractor to Wazir Singh. On 16.1.2003, tractor was stolen by some unknown person, so, FIR was lodged on 11.2.2003 and intimation was given to OP. Complainant submitted claim before OP, which was repudiated. It was further submitted that Wazir Singh, purchaser of the tractor filed Complaint No. 487 of 2004 before the District Forum which was decided on 2.12.2007 and complaint was dismissed with liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that as tractor had already been sold by complainant to Wazir Singh on 28.8.2000 and tractor was being used for transportation of stones for commercial purposes and as complainant had no insurable interest in the tractor at the time of theft and as intimation of theft was given to OP on 1.5.2003 by State Bank of Patiala, OP has not committed any deficiency in repudiating the claim and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.1,80,000/- along with interest and further awarded Rs.2,200/- as litigation charges. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of violation of conditions of the policy and complainant having no insurable interest at the time of accident, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by leaned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. It is admitted case of the complainant that tractor was stolen on 16.1.2003 and FIR was lodged on 11.2.2003 and intimation of theft was given to OP on 1.5.2003 meaning thereby, there was delay of 26 days in lodging FIR and delay of 3 months in giving intimation to Insurance Company, which amounts to violation of the conditions of policy. In F.A. No. 321 of 2005 New India Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Trilochan Jane, decided by this Commission on 9.12.2009, claim of the complainant was dismissed, as FIR was lodged after 2 days and intimation to Insurance Company was given after 9 days. In the light of aforesaid judgment it becomes clear that on account of delay in lodging FIR and intimation to Insurance Company, there was a clear violation of the conditions of the policy and learned State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that complainant had no insurable interest. It is admitted case of the complainant that complainant sold the tractor to Wazir Singh on 11.12.2001; even then, obtained policy of insurance in his own name from 2.5.2002 to 1.5.2003 without any insurable interest in the vehicle. Merely because vehicles registration certificate stood in the name of complainant, complainant cannot be held to have insurable interest after sale of the vehicle. As insurance policy obtained by the complainant was without any insurable interest, OP rightly repudiated the claim and learned State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal.
7. Learned State Commission while dismissing appeal placed reliance on the decision of this Commission in R.P. No. 1034 of 2011 Subhash Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. in which insurable interest was found in the complainant, as agreement for sale was cancelled meaning thereby, vehicle was not found to have been sold to other party. Learned State Commission also placed reliance on the judgment of this Commission in R.P. No. 2262 of 2007 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jai Pal Singh & Anr. in which insurance policy was not transferred in the name of complainant; though, registration certificate stood transferred in his name. Facts of aforesaid case are not applicable to the present case, as in the present case complainant had already sold the vehicle to Wazir Singh long before the accident and obtained insurance policy without any insurable interest which was void ab initio.
8. In the light of above discussion, revision petition is to be allowed and impugned order is liable to set aside.
9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 10.2.2012 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 155 of 2012 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Maha Singh and order of District Forum dated 2.11.2011 passed in Complaint No. 79 of 2008 - Maha Singh Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k