National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mushtaq Mohd. & Anr. vs National Insurance Company Limited, on 6 November, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3774 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 29.05.2012 in First Appeal No. 1507 of 2007 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh) 1. Mushtaq Mohd. S/o Mr. Kamal Din, Village Takhar Khurd, Tehsil Malerkotla District Sangrur, Punjab 2. Mr. Avtar Singh, S/o Mr. Mohinder Singh, Raikot Road, Near Lok Sewa Hospital Barnala, Punjab ... Petitioners Versus National Insurance Company Limited, Having its Divisional Office Outside Dhuri Gate, Sangrur through its Divisional Manager, Regional Office, SCO No. 332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh ... Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhineet Gulati, Advocate Pronounced on : 6th November, 2012 ORDER
JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. Mr. Avtar Singh, complainant/petitioner No. 2 was the owner of truck No. PB-13K 6205. He had obtained an insurance policy valid from 25.6.2006 to 24.6.2007 from the National Insurance Company Limited, opposite party. In the meantime, Mushtaq Mohd.-complainant/petitioner No. 1 purchased the said vehicle in question from petitioner No. 2. A power of attorney was also executed by petitioner No. 2 in favour of the petitioner No.
1. Intimation was given to the Branch Office of the respondent situated at Ahmedgarh, Punjab. Unfortunately, the said vehicle was stolen during the night intervening 26-27/1/2007 from the premises of Rehman Filling Station (Petrol Pump), Raikot Road, Malerkotla.
The F.I.R. was also lodged with the police station Malerkotla. An intimation of theft was also given to the Branch office of the respondent at Malerkotla as well as Ahmedgarh on 8.2.2007.
2. The petitioner No. 2 submitted the claim which was repudiated by the opposite party.
3. The District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the complainants. However, the State Commission accepted the appeal and dismissed the complaint.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He vehemently argued that the facts and circumstances of this case are different. He contended that the claim was filed by Avtar Singh and since he had an insurable interest, therefore, the claim should have been granted in his favour.
5. Instead of coming to the heart of the problem, learned counsel for the petitioner touched only peripheral issues. It is clear that Avtar Singh had no insurable interest at the time of accident. He had already sold the vehicle to petitioner No. 2. Avtar Singh had no locus standi to file the claim. He had not even the privity of contract because petitioner no. 1 had stepped into his shoes. This is an admitted fact that the petitioner No. 1 failed to transfer the insurable claim within 14 days from the date of registration. The State Commission rightly placed reliance on the authorities reported in Complete Insulation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India 1996 ACJ page 65 and in Oriental Insurnace Company Ltd. vs. Reeta in revision petition No. 2299 decided on 20.10.2009 by this Commission.
5. Under these circumstances, we find that the petitioners do not have a bone to pluck with the respondent National Insurance Company Ltd. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-.
(J. M. MALIK, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER Naresh/reserved