1.      This revision is directed against the order dated 06.06.2014 of the State Commission, Punjab in Appeal No. 987 of 2010.

2.     Briefly put the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that Smt. Anita Mahajan and Sh. Agya Pal Singh filed a joint consumer complaint against the Petitioner/Insurance Company alleging that Smt. Anita Mahajan(Complainant No.1) was the original owner of vehicle No. JK-2X-3322. She got the vehicle insured with the Petitioner—Insurance Company in the year 2005 and the insurance policy was renewed from year to year.

3.     That on 18.03.2008, the original owner (C-1) sold the aforesaid vehicle to Sh. Agya Pal Singh (C-2) and delivered the possession of the Car to him. The earlier policy taken by complainant no. 1 was expiring on 21.03.2008. Complainant No.1—Anita Mahajan despite of having sold the car to Complainant No.2—Agya Pal Singh got the fresh insurance of the car by way of renewal of the policy for the period from 22.3.2008 to 21.03.2009.

4.     That the vehicle met with an accident on 21.3.2008 and was removed to Purshottam Motor Garage for repairs. Anita Mahajan filed an insurance claim for the damage caused due to the accident and it was settled in terms of cashless policy.

5.     In the intervening night of 18/19.04.2008, the subject vehicle was stolen while parked outside the house of Complainant No. 2—Agya Pal Singh. F.I.R. was lodged with the Police. Intimation was also given to the insurance company. The vehicle could not be traced. The insurance claim filed by the complainant no.2 with the insurance company  was repudiated on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the Petitioner—Insurance Company and the complainant no.2.

6.     Being aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim, both, previous owners and subsequent owner filed a joint complaint against the petitioner.

7.     The Petitioner/Opposite Party resisted the complaint and justified the repudiation of the insurance claim.

8.     The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner/Opposite Party to indemnify the loss of the complainant along with 9% interest thereon from the date of filing of the claim till realization. Rs.3,000/- was also awarded as compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

9.     Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner preferred an appeal. The State Commission on consideration of the record of the District Forum disposed of the appeal with some modification. The relevant directions of the State Commission are as under;

“Accordingly the appeal is disposed of by modification of the order of the District Forum and a direction is issued to the opposite party to settle the claim of complainant no.1 and to indemnify her for the loss suffered by her on account of the loss of the vehicle. It cannot be made out from the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence produced by the complainants that it was complainant no.2, who had suffered the mental agony, harassment or inconvenience; as the same is illegal to have been suffered by complainant no.2. As the act of the opposite party in repudiating the claim of that complainant has been held to be correct, so that part of the order of the District Forum, vide which direction was issued for the payment of Rs.3,000/- as damages for mental agony, harassment and inconvenience is set aside. No order is made as to costs.”       

10.   Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that orders of the Fora below are not sustainable for the reasons that both the Fora below have ignored that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and the complainant no.2—Agya Pal Singh and that the Complainant No. 1—Anita Mahajan had no insurable interest in the subject vehicle as she has admittedly sold the vehicle to Agya Pal Singh before taking the insurance cover. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and complaint be dismissed.

11.   Sh. C. K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. It is contended that the complainant no.1 got the insurance policy renewed despite of having sold the subject vehicle to the Complainant No.2—Agya Pal Singh, because the registration of the vehicle was still in the name of the Complainant No.1—Anita Mahajan.

12.   We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. It is disputed that the subject vehicle was sold by the complainant no.1 to complainant no.2 on 18.03.2008 and the possession of the car was also delivered to the complainant no.2 on the same day. From this, it is clear that after having sold the vehicle on 18.03.2008, Complainant No.1—Anita Mahajan was left no insurable interest in the subject vehicle, therefore, the subject insurance policy obtained by Anita Mahajan on 22.03.2008 by concealment that she had insurable interest, cannot be termed as a valid insurance contract.

13.   The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that as Anita Mahajan had been renewing the insurance policy from year to year, the renewal of the subject policy was only in continuation of the earlier policy and therefore, it cannot be said that Anita Mahajan, Complainant No.1 had obtained the insurance over by concealing the fact that she had sold her interest in the subject vehicle to Complainant No.2—Agya Pal Singh.

14.    We do not agree with the above contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents for the reasons that even if it was a case of renewal of insurance policy, the complainant no.1 was under obligation to inform the Petitioner/Insurance Company that the subject  vehicle has been sold to Complainant No.2—Agya Pal Singh. Had the complainant informed the petitioner about sale of vehicle to complainant no.2, insurance policy would have been issued in the name of Complainant—Agya Pal Singh and not in the name of Complainant No.1—Anita Mahajan. So far as the Complainant No.2—Agya Pal Singh is concerned, he admittedly was not the party to the insurance contract as such his insurance claim was rightly repudiated by the Petitioner/Insurance Company. Both the Fora below have totally ignored the above-noted factual aspect. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained.

15.   In view of the discussion above, it is clear that impugned orders have been passed in utter disregard of admitted factual position. Thus,  we allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned orders of the Fora below and dismissed the complaint.

15.   The amount deposited by the Petitioner—Insurance Policy with the District Forum as pre conditions of the stay as per order dated 09.10.2014 be released to the Petitioner—Insurance Company after the expiry of the appeal/revision, if any.