State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Oic vs Kewal Krishan on 23 October, 2012
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 368 of 2008
Date of institution: 24.04.2008
Date of decision : 23.10.2012
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, SCO Nos. 109-111,
Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory Sh. S.P.Sharma,
Deputy Manager.
.....Appellants
Versus
Kewal Krishan s/o Sh. Ram Parkash, V & P.O. Kaulgarh, Tehsil Balachaur,
District Nawanshahr.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 20.03.2008
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal,
Presiding Judicial Member
Sardar Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Argued by:-
For the appellants : Sh. P.H.S.Pannu, Advocate for Sh. V.K.Kapoor, Advocate For the respondent : None JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This is OP's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 20.03.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short the District Forum) vide which the OP was directed as under : -
a) Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of insurance claim along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 1.8.2007 till realization. First Appeal No.368 of 2008 2
b) Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment
c) Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that Kewal Krishan complainant purchased a jeep from Wazir Singh and got it transferred to his name. The jeep was already insured with the OP- appellants for the period from 6.2.2006 to 5.2.2007. The jeep was stolen on 1.8.2006 regarding which FIR was lodged and the OP- appellants were informed. The OPs, however, repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant had no insurable interest in the same.
3. The complaint was opposed by the OP-appellants admitting that the jeep was owned by Wazir Singh and was insured with them but their contention is that after the complainant purchased the jeep, he did not inform them for transferring the insurance policy in their favour and, therefore, had no insurable interest in the same.
4. Both the parties were afforded opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.
5. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 20.3.2008 allowed the complaint in terms stated above. The OPs have challenged the same through the present appeal.
6. The counsel for the respondent last appeared on 12.5.2009. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for a number of times but none had appeared for the respondent. The case relates First Appeal No.368 of 2008 3 to the year 2008. Therefore, it is not thought appropriate to adjourn the case any further. Accordingly, we have heard the counsel for the appellants and have perused the record.
7. The learned District Forum has allowed the complaint on the ground that the insurance policy was to be transferred automatically in favour of the purchaser. We may, however, refer to Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company Limited, I (1996) CPJ 1 (SC) wherein it was held that the purchaser is to get the insurance policy transferred in his name and if it is not done, then the complainant would not be entitled to compensation. So far as the automatic transfer of the insurance policy in favour of the purchaser of the vehicle is concerned, it relates only to third party claims and not to the own claim cases. In this respect, we may also refer to the case United India Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Harinder Kaur, III (2007) CPJ 411 (NC) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Kamal Tours and Travels, III (2011) CPJ 39 (NC)"
8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is perverse and bad in law and cannot sustain. The complaint was liable to be dismissed but has been wrongly allowed. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum and dismiss the complaint. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
9. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 24.4.2008. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest, if any, accrued thereon be refunded by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. First Appeal No.368 of 2008 4
Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of costs.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER October 23, 2012.
Paritosh