National Consumer Disputes Redressal
United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Nasir Shah Bashir Shah on 30 November, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4854 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 12/09/2013 in Appeal No. 275/2008 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. THROUGH ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY,
MANAGER,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT DELHI REGIONAL OFFICE -I
8TH FLOOR, KANCHENJUNGA BLDG,18 BARAKHAMABA ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110001 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NASIR SHAH BASHIR SHAH R/O WAKADHI TQ.JAMNER,
DISTRICT : JALGAON MAHARASHATRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Somnath Pathan, Adv.
Dated : 30 Nov 2015 ORDER
Pronounced on 30th November, 2015
ORDER
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 12.9.2013 passed by State Commission in FA No. 275 of 2008- Nasir Shah Bashir Shah Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.; by which while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent purchased jeep MH-19/J-1665 after availing loan from bank, hypothecated it with the bank. Vehicle was insured by opposite party/petitioner for a period of one year from 4.8.2005 to 3.8.2006. On 9.12.2005, between 11 to 11.30 a.m., vehicle was parked near bus stand and complainant went to hotel for taking tea but on return, he did not find vehicle and on enquiry, came to know that Sadik Shah took away the vehicle. FIR was lodged on 19.1.2006 and intimation of theft was given to opposite party. Claim was lodged which was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that vehicle was not stolen but was sold to one Gulab Shah. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint admitting issuance of policy but submitted that as per investigator's report, complainant sold vehicle to Gulab Shah for Rs. 2,45,000/- and document was executed and there was no theft of vehicle, so, claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was allowed by Learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.
Heard Learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that in spite of no insurable interest in the complainant at the time of insurance and in spite of proof of sale of vehicle and no proof of theft, Learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal and complaint, hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for respondent submitted that order passed by Learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence, revision petition be dismissed.
It is not disputed that complainant obtained insurance policy from opposite party for a period of one year from 4.8.2005 to 3.8.2006. It is also not disputed that complainant lodged FIR on 19.1.2006 pertaining to theft of vehicle on 9.12.2005.
In FIR, complainants mentioned that vehicle was sold to one Gulab Shah but Gulab Shah could not pay instalments of jeep. He took away jeep from him before two months. In the light of admission of complainant himself coupled with sale deed executed on stamp by complainant in favour of Gulab Shah proves that complainant sold his vehicle to Gulab Shah on 29.12.2004. When vehicle had already been sold by complainant to Gulab Shah on 29.12.2004, he had no insurable interest in the vehicle on 4.8.2005 on which he obtained policy. In such circumstances, in the absence of any insurable interest in favour of complainant, he had no locus standi to get his vehicle insured only on the basis of registration certificate depicting his name as registered owner. Purchaser of vehicle ought to have got it transferred in his name and obtained insurance coverage. Learned Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in RP No. 1470 of 2006- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Divya Prashad; in which it was held that when there was credible evidence on record that vehicle was sold by complainant and had no insurable interest at the time of accident, Insurance Co. was not liable to pay any claim. In the light of aforesaid judgment, complainant was not entitled to any claim regarding theft of vehicle.
Even if it is presumed that complainant was owner of vehicle at the time of alleged theft and was having insurable interest, admittedly, he lodged FIR after 40 days of alleged theft though theft is not proved and it appears that complainant sold vehicle to Gulab Shah. As there was delay of 40 days in lodging FIR which amounted to violation of terms & conditions of policy, according to which immediate report was required to be lodged, complainant was not entitled to any claim in the light of judgment of this Commission in FA No. 321 of 2005- New India Insurance Co. Vs. Trilochan Jane; in which complaint was dismissed as FIR was lodged with delay of 2 days and intimation to Insurance Co. was given after nine days.
Learned State Commission while allowing appeal, wrongly observed that affidavit of investigator was not filed whereas record reveals that Investigator, Advocate, Pushpkumar Mundhra, filed affidavit before District Forum on 29.9.2007. Learned State Commission, further, wrongly observed that because there was no entry in favour of Gulab Shah in registration certificate, vehicle was not sold to Gulab Shah whereas admission of complainant coupled with sale deed proves that vehicle had already been sold by complainant to Gulab Shah.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that Learned State Commission has committed illegality in allowing appeal.
Consequently, revision petition filed by petitioner is allowed and order dated 12.9.2013 passed by Learned State Commission in FA No. 275 of 2008- Nasir Shah Bashir Shah Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.; is set aside and order of District Forum dated 13.2.2008 passed in Complaint No. 170/2007- Nashir Shah Bashir Shah Vs. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. ; is affirmed and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
-sd/-
......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER