State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Ins.Co.Ltd. vs Ashok Kumar Singh on 3 June, 2009
Appeal No.64/06 United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,Tonk Road,Jaipur Appellant V. Ashok Kumar Singh,r/o Rajnagar,Rajsamand Kailash Chand r/o Nandoli,Rajsamand Respondents Before: Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member
Shri Kapil Totla,counsel for the appellant Shri Shiv Vyas,counsel for res.no.1 None for res.no.2 Dated:
3.6.09 BY THE STATE COMMISSION This appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company which was op no.1 before the District Forum,Rajsamand against the order dated 1.12.05 passed by the District Forum,Rajsamand in complaint no.201/04,by which the complaint of the complainant respondent no.1 was allowed against the appellant insurance company in the manner that the appellant insurance company was directed to pay a sum of Rs.36,000/- to the complainant res.no.1.
2. It arises in the following circumstances:
That the complainant res.no.1 had filed a complaint against the appellant as well as res.no.2 (o.p.no.2) before the District Forum,Rajsamand on 15.12.04 interalia stating that he has got his motor cycle bearing registration no.RJ.30-2 N.6789 insured with the appellant insurance company for the period 18.9.03 to 17.9.04 for a sum of Rs.32,000/- as IDV. It was further stated in the complaint that on 30.10.03 the complainant res.no.1 had made an agreement for selling the above 2 motor cycle for a sum of Rs.35,000/- to res.no.2 and the complainant res.no.1 had purchased the vehicle after taking loan from the bank,therefore,the vehicle in question could not be transferred to any person till the loan was made clear by res.no.1 and thus on the date of theft,res.no.1 was the owner of the vehicle.
It was further stated in the complaint that out of Rs.35,000/- for which the motor cycle was agreed to be sold by the complainant res.no.1 to res.no.2 on 30.10.03 a sum of Rs.15,000/- were paid in advance by the res.no.2 to complainant res.no.1. It was further stated in the complaint that on 19.11.03 when the motor cycle in question was being parked before the shop of Krishan Kumar Agarwal,the same was stolen away at about 8 PM and for that a FIR bearing no.600/03 was lodged by res.no.2 with the police station,Rajnagar,District Rajsamand and the police after investigation had submitted FR no.157/03 and the same was accepted by the concerned Magistrate on 5.2.04. It was further stated in the complaint that the appellant insurance company was also informed by the complainant res.no.1, but the claim of complainant res.no.1 was repudiated by the appellant insurance company through letter dated 26.7.04 on the ground that since the vehicle in question has been sold by the complainant res.no.1 to res.no.2,therefore,on the date of theft complainant res.no.1 was not having any insurable interest. Thereafter the present complaint was filed.
A reply was filed by the appellant insurance company before the District Forum on 16.2.05 and in the reply the appellant had taken the same pleas which were taken in the repudiation letter dated 26.7.04 and further in respect of theft of the vehicle,Shri Pramod Kumar Jain,Investigator was appointed who had submitted his report on 12.1.04 and who had come to the conclusion that the motor cycle in question was stolen away on 19.11.03 and the same was not recovered by the police and the same was sold to res.no.2 on 30.10.03 through agreement,but on the 3 date of theft the registration was in the name of the complainant res.no.1 and similarly on insurance papers his name was there and since the fact of selling the motor cycle by the complainant res.no.1 to res.no.2 is found established,therefore,claim was rightly repudiated on ground of insurable interest and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
The District Forum after hearing the parties,through the impugned order dated 1.12.05 had allowed the complaint of complainant res.no.1 in the manner as indicated above, interalia holding :
that since on the date of theft ie on 19.11.03 the registered owner of the vehicle was the complainant res.no.1 and he was the insured person.
That the vehicle in question was insured for the period 18.9.03 to 17.9.04 for a sum of Rs.32,000/- as IDV by the complainant res.no.1 with the appellant insurance company and the same was stolen away on 19.11.03 and a report was lodged by res.no.2 and police had submitted FR which was accepted by the Magistrate.
That on 30.10.03 the complainant res.no.1 had sold the vehicle to res.no.2 through an agreement for a sum of Rs.35,000/- and out of that amount he had only received a sum of Rs.15,000/- in advance.
That the repudiation of the claim of complainant res.no.1 by the appellant insurance company was not found justified.
Aggrieved from the said order dated 1.12.05 passed by the District Forum,Rajsamand, the appellant insurance company has preferred this appeal.
3. In this appeal,the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company:
that on the date of theft of vehicle in question,when the 4 complainant res.no.1 had received the money from Kailash Chand res.no.2,therefore,he had not sustained any monetary loss on account of theft of vehicle in question and thus,he was not having any insurable interest in the vehicle in question. Hence,claim of complainant res.no.1 was rightly repudiated by the appellant insurance company and the District Forum has committed serious error and illegality in decreeing the claim of the complainant res.no.1.
That prior to theft of vehicle in question on 30.10.03,its ownership was transferred by the complainant res.no.1 in favour of Kailash Chand, res.no.2 as on 30.10.03,he had received the sale consideration of Rs.15,000/-
and,therefore,from that point of view also,the complainant res.no.1 had no insurable interest in the vehicle in question.
That the learned District Forum had failed to consider the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.Govindan v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & ors. (AIR 1999 SC 1398 = (1999) 3 SCC 754) where it was held that once the ownership of a motor vehicle stood transferred,the original owner/seller shall only retain insurable interest in the motor vehicle as regards third party liability but no proprietrary interest shall be retained by such seller vis-a-vis the motor vehicle in question. Therefore,from that point of view also,the complainant res.no.1 had no insrable interest in the vehicle in question.
4. On the other hand,the learned counsel appearing for the complainant res.no.1 has supported the impugned order of the District Forum.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant res.no.1 and gone through the entire materials available on record.
56. There is no dispute on the point that the vehicle in question bearing no.RJ.30.2N 6789 was purchased by the complainant res.no.1 for a sum of Rs.35,000/- and the same was got insured by him with the appellant insurance company for the period 18.9.03 to 17.9.04 for a sum of Rs.32,000/-.
7. There is also no dispute on the point that on 19.11.03 ,the vehicle in question was stolen away by some one and for that a report was lodged by Kailash Chand,res.no.2,alleged purchaser of the vehicle in question,in the police station,Rajnagar,District Rajsamand where FIR no.600/03 was registered.
8. There is also no dispute on the point that in the aforesaid FIR,the police had submitted FR and the same was accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 5.2.04.
9. There is also no dispute on the point that in the aforesaid FIR,Kailash Chand,res.no.2 has stated that prior to theft,he had purchased the vehicle in question from the complainant res.no.1, though it was not transferred and registered in his name in RTO papers and,therefore,he has lodged the report.
10. There is also no dispute on the point that Shri Pramod Kumar Jain was appointed as Investigator by the appellant who had submitted his report on 12.1.04 and who had come to the conclusion that the motor cycle in question was stolen away on 19.11.03 and the same was not recovered by the police and the same was sold to res.no.2 on 30.10.03 through agreement,but on the date of theft the registration was in the name of the complainant res.no.1 and similarly on insurance papers his name was there.
611. Therefore,factually it is well established that prior to the theft of the vehicle in question on 19.11.03 which was sold by complainant res.no.1 to res.no.2 by agreement dated 30.10.03 for a sum of Rs.35,000/- but even on the date of theft the vehicle in question stood registered in the name of complainant res.no.1 as well as in the insurance papers.
12. There is also no dispute on the point that on the date of theft,the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant insurance company and it was insured in the name of the complainant res.no.1.
13. There is also no dispute on the point that the claim of the complainant res.no.1 was repudiated by the appellant insurance company on the ground that since the complainant res.no.1 had sold the vehicle in question to Kailash Chand, res.no.2 on 30.10.03 through agreement after taking a sum of Rs.15,000/-, therefore,he was not having any insurable interest in the vehicle in question.
14. Thus,the question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances just narrated above,repudiation of the claim of complainant res.no.1 by the appellant insurance company was justified or not,or whether the findings of the District Forum that the complainant res.no.1 was having insurable interest in the vehicle in question could be sustained or not.
15. From the above discussion this Commission is of the view that where a vehicle was purchased by a person,which was insured with the insurance company and before that vehicle was got transferred and registered in the name of the purchaser and his name was entered in the RTO and insurance papers,if that vehicle was stolen away or damaged in any accident while the registration certificate and the insurance policy were in the name of the original owner,in such a situation,purchaser/transferee in absence of insurance policy/cover in his 7 name cannot claim any amount from the insurance company as there was no privity of contract between him and the insurance company and the claim could only be made by the original owner and policy holder,who had insurable interest as vehicle was insured in his name.
16. In this case the complaint had been filed by the complainant res.no.1 who was the registered owner as well as insured person on the date of theft. Thus he was having insurable interest in the vehicle on the date of theft.
17. Thus,it is held that the appellant insurance company was not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant res.no.1 and it amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant insurance company and the District Forum had rightly observed so. The appellant insurance company was under legal obligation to indemnify the loss of vehicle to the complainant res.no.1 only as it was insured in his name and not to Kailash Chand,res.no.2, the purchaser,who had no privity of contract with the appellant insurance company and,therefore,the District Forum was right in decreeing the claim of the complainant res.no.1 holding that the complainant res.no.1 was having insurable interest in the vehicle in question. The findings of the District Forum in this respect are based on correct appreciation of entire materials and evidence available on record and they do not suffer from any basic infirmity or illegality or perversity. Hence,no interference is called for with the same and appeal deserves to be dismissed.
18. No doubt,the District Forum had awarded a sum of Rs.36,000/- though the vehicle in question was insured for a sum of Rs.32,000/- as IDV,but since the District Forum had not awarded any interest or cost of litigation,therefore,this Commission does not want to interfere with the amount of assessment made by the District Forum.
819. For the reasons stated above, this appeal filed by the appellant insurance company is dismissed.
Member President