State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Sh. Mahendra Kumar on 12 October, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 259 / 2008
1. United India Insurance Company Limited
Kailash Gate, Rishikesh
through its Authorised Signatory
2. United India Insurance Company Limited
Haridwar having its Divisional Office at
Mitra Vatika, Ranipur More
Jwalapur, Haridwar through its Authorised Signatory
......Appellants / Opposite Parties
Versus
Sh. Mahendra Kumar S/o late Sh. Babu Lal
R/o Raiwala Bazar, Pratit Nagar
Raiwala, District Dehradun
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Bhupesh Kandpal, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
Sh. Vivek Painuli, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 12/10/2010
ORDER
(Per: Justice Irshad Hussain, President):
This is insurer's appeal against the order dated 07.10.2008 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 118 of 2005, whereby the consumer complaint was allowed and the complainant was held entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,08,500/- with interest, by way of indemnification of the loss occasioned to the complainant on account of theft of his insured vehicle No. UP-07C- 3152. The compensation was awarded, as has been assessed by the statutory surveyor Sh. Mohit Agarwal vide his report dated 26.04.2004. The District Forum rejected the contention of the insurance company that the complainant did not have any insurable 2 interest in the vehicle at the time of its loss, as the vehicle at that time, was in possession of Sh. Satish Kandwal, to whom the vehicle had, in fact, been sold by the complainant.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the facts, circumstances and legal aspects of the case, we may state at the outset that there being no merit in this appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed.
3. The reasons for our decision are that the contention similar to the one raised before the District Forum on behalf of the insurance company, does not carry conviction, in view of the peculiar facts of the case that the insurance policy was admittedly issued in the name of the complainant Sh. Mahendra Kumar and the vehicle also remained duly registered in his name even on the date of the theft of the vehicle, as is evident from the registration particular of the vehicle checked and verified by the surveyor. Learned counsel for the insurance company drew our attention to the agreement of sale and also the sale letter regarding the vehicle said to have been executed between the complainant and Sh. Satish Kandwal, but it is of significance that the registration of the vehicle was neither transferred in the name of alleged purchaser, nor the policy of insurance was issued in the name of alleged purchaser. It is of significance that the complainant merely admitted execution of agreement of sale, but came up with the allegation that the sale was not finalized in terms of the agreement on account of non-payment of the agreed price of the vehicle. The complainant also denied execution of the sale letter dated 03.03.2000 filed by the insurance company, which is not notarized and the signatures of the parties to the alleged sale letter were, therefore, not duly verified before the statutorily recognized functionary of the government. In other words, merely on the basis of 3 the agreement of sale, it could not have been said that the vehicle in question had been sold by the complainant to Sh. Satish Kandwal.
4. Further, the complainant came up with the allegation that Sh. Satish Kandwal was his attorney and even if his attorney was in possession of the vehicle to ply it under the instructions of the complainant, the complainant could not be said to have lost insurable interest in the vehicle. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, the District Forum rightly placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shrawan Bhati; II (2008) CPJ 364 (NC) and wherein it has been held that insurable interest in the vehicle lies with the person who is the legal owner of the vehicle and has insurance policy in his name also, duly issued by the insurer. This reported decision squarely apply to the facts of the case and, therefore, the decision in the matter of Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited; II (1996) ACC 536 (SC), pressed into service on behalf of the insurance company, can safely be said to have no bearing to the facts of the case, for the reason that the reported case pertain to the provision of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under which provision, there is requirement of transfer of insurance certificate in favour of the transferee of the vehicle. In the instant case, there has not been any transfer of the vehicle and, as such, the said decision does not help the cause of the insurance company.
5. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN) K