Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The complainant alleged, in his complaint, that he got insured his truck bearing No.PB-05-M-8177 with the opposite party, after the payment of Rs.26,272/-, as the insurance premium. Policy bearing No.233703/31/2012/340 was issued in his name and the same was valid from 07.06.2011 to 06.06.2012. This truck was being run by him, through Tarsem Lal and Raj Kumar, and he had been earning his livelihood by plying the same. On 31.10.2011, the truck was stolen by some unknown persons and could not be traced, in- spite of the best efforts made by himself, Tarsem Lal and Raj Kumar. Tarsem Lal and Raj Kumar got FIR No.135 dated 21.11.2011 registered in Police Station, Makhu, under Section 379 IPC. The police tried to locate the truck, but the same was not traceable and ultimately, it filed the "Untraceable Report" before the Illaqa Magistrate and the same was accepted. After the truck was stolen, he informed the opposite party and also filed his claim before it, but the same was repudiated, vide letter dated 10.11.2014, on false and flimsy grounds. This act and conduct on the part of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice.

3. The complaint was contested by the opposite party, by filing the written reply before the District Forum; in which it admitted that the truck was so insured with it and that the complainant made claim under the Insurance Policy; which was repudiated. It also admitted that in FIR No.135 dated 21.11.2011, the police submitted "Untraced Report" before the Illaqa Magistrate; which was accepted. It denied the other allegations made in the complaint and averred that the complainant had already sold the truck to Tarsem Lal, vide affidavit of sale dated 04.03.2008, and even the FIR No.135 was got registered by that Tarsem Lal. When the police submitted the "Untraced Report" before the Illaqa Magistrate, Tarsem Lal gave statement that he had purchased the truck from the complainant and even the complainant had made his statement to that effect before the Illaqa Magistrate and only thereafter the "Untraced Report" was accepted, vide order dated 30.03.2013. The claim of the complainant was repudiated, as he was not the owner of the truck and could not have got the same insured. All these material facts were concealed by him in the complaint and he has not come to the District Forum, with clean hands. He is not entitled to any such relief, as claimed in the complaint and the same is not maintainable. It prayed for the dismissal thereof, with special costs; being false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant.

7. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the District Forum recorded the findings against the complainant, on the basis of the evidence produced before it. From that evidence, it stands proved that the complainant had already sold the truck to Tarsem Lal and he was no more the owner thereof. Not only the affidavit was executed by him to that effect, but even the FIR was got registered by Tarsem Lal and after the "Untraced Report" was submitted before the Illaqa Magistrate, that Tarsem Lal made a statement that he had purchased the truck from the complainant and similar statement was suffered by the complainant himself. When the complainant was not the owner, he could not have acquired insurable interest therein, by getting the same insured and the opposite party was justified in repudiating his claim. There is no ground for setting aside the well reasoned order passed by the District Forum.

9. To rebut this evidence of the complainant, the opposite party proved on record the affidavit of sale, executed by the complainant in favour of Tarsem Lal, Ex.OP-3, and the statements, Ex.OP-6 and Ex.OP-7, made by both of them before the J.M.I.C., Zira, on 11.03.2013 in the report submitted by the police for filing the FIR No.135, as "Untraced". In the said affidavit, which was got attested from the Notary Public on 04.03.2008, it was deposed by the complainant that he sold the truck to Tarsem Lal and after receiving the full price thereof handed over the possession to him on 15.02.2008. In the statement made by that Tarsem Lal, Ex.OP-6, he stated that he is the complainant in FIR No.135 and that the truck/trolla, in question, was purchased by him from Rajinder Kumar, its previous owner. Rajinder Kumar, complainant, also stated the same fact in his statement, Ex.OP-7. It is pertinent to note that even in the FIR No.135, Ex.C-5, which was got lodged regarding theft of the truck by Tarsem Lal, it was stated by him that he had purchased that truck from Rajinder Kumar. From all this evidence, so produced on the record, it stands proved that the truck was sold by the complainant to Tarsem Lal on 13.02.2008/ 15.02.2008 and the possession thereof was given by him to Tarsem Lal, after receiving the price thereof. Thus, the property in the truck passed in favour of Tarsem Lal on that date.