National Consumer Disputes Redressal
The New India Assurace Co. Ltd. vs M/S. Appliance Technologies India Ltd. on 26 April, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2530 OF 2008 (Against the Order dated 10/01/2008 in Appeal No. 736/2007 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURACE CO. LTD. Registered Office at 87, M.G. Road Mumbai Maharashtra 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Regional Office at Level V, Tower II, Jeevan Bharti Building, Connaught Circus New Delhi - 110 092 Delhi 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Also at 10th Floor Core -I, Scope Minar Laxmi Nagar Centre Delhi - 110 092 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. APPLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LTD. NH-8, Near Birla Kanan Shiv Murti Rang Puri New Delhi Delhi ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Niraj Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : ex-parte Dated : 26 Apr 2017 ORDER DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 10.01.2008 in first appeal No. 736 of 2007 passed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the District Forum, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
2. The brief facts are that the complainant, M/s Appliance Technology Ltd., who was the authorized dealer of the car, took Motor Trade (Road Risk) Insurance Policy from New India Assurance Company Ltd./OP and the same was valid from 20.12.2003 to 19.12.2004. On 18.10.2004, a customer, namely, Mr. Amrik Singh desired to purchase new Fiat Palio Car. He had seen various models of the car parked inside the showroom. Before completion of the formalities for purchase of the car, he desired for test ride of the car. Mr. Abhishek Jain from the side of the complainant escorted him for the test ride. As the car started some unusual noise from the front side, Mr. Abhishek Jain got off the car to check the problem but Mr. Amrik Singh sped up the car and took it away. Thereafter, the complainant made inquires from the address given by the customer but no such person was found there. Hence, on 19.10.2004, FIR was lodged under Section 379 I.P.C. and intimation of theft was given to the OP. The car remained untraced. The OP appointed private investigation agency in this matter. Thereafter, on the basis of investigator's report and relevant documents, the OP observed that the said vehicle had already been sold and the same was insured with another insurance company, namely, National Insurance Company and accordingly, repudiated the claim of the complainant. Aggrieved by the said repudiation, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kashmere Gate (in short, the District Forum')
3. The OP contested the complaint before the District Forum. The OP took objection that complainant did not lodge FIR on the same date so that the culprit could be arrested. Mr. Amrik Singh obtained insurance cover on 20.10.2004 from National Insurance Company Ltd. on payment of insurance premium for a sum of Rs.17,187/- by cheque. Thus, the entire transaction had already been completed between Mr. Amrik Singh and the complainant (dealer).
4. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner/OP to pay Rs.3,80,000/- as value of car plus Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs.
5. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the OP/petitioner filed first appeal before the State Commission, Delhi. The State Commission dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision petition.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent was already proceeded against ex parte. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fora below have decided the case overlooking the fact that the complainant has no insurable interest in the insured vehicle after its sale because the vehicle in question after sale had already been insured by the owner, Mr. Amrik Singh with the other insurance company i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd. by a separate policy from 18.10.2004 to 17.10.2005. Counsel further submitted that the insurance policy could only be issued after the vehicle had already been sold by the complainant/dealer to the aforesaid Mr. Amrik Singh whereas the Motor Trade (Road Risk) policy does not cover risk or loss to the vehicle after it has been sold. It only covers trade risk of the dealers. Also, it is questionable that why the complainant failed to lodge a complaint with police immediately. It shows a clear collusion or negligence of the complainant to take necessary precautions and the steps subsequent to the loss.
7. After thoughtful consideration and perusing the investigator's report alongwith other documents, it is clear that the vehicle had already been sold and the same was insured by Mr. Amrik Singh with National Insurance Company Ltd. by paying the premium of Rs. 17,187/- by cheque. The copy of cover note issued by National Insurance Company is also on record. Therefore, in our view, the complainant's claim is outside the purview of Motor Trade (Road Risk) Insurance Policy. It is also pertinent to note that on investigation, it was revealed that the complainant lodged another claim on the same vehicle on earlier occasion stating that on 10.2.2004, the accident took place and the vehicle was identified on the basis of chasis number. It was the same. Therefore, in the instant case, in our view, the claim made by the complainant is not genuine. Also, there was a delay in lodging FIR by the complainant. Thus, the complainant has no insurable interest as the vehicle was already sold to Mr. Amrik Singh, who got the insured it with National Insurance Company.
8. On the basis of foregoing discussion, the State Commission erred in dismissing the appeal. We set aside the orders of State Commission as well as and allow the revision petition. Consequently, the complaint is hereby dismissed.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER