Haryana

StateCommission

A/1194/2016

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DARSHAN - Opp.Party(s)

PUNIT JAIN

15 Sep 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    1194 of 2016

Date of Institution:    13.12.2016

Date of Decision :     15.09.2017

 

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, through Manager, Registered and Head Office Dere House, 2^nd Floor, No.2, NSC Bose Road, Chennai.

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 103, 2^nd Floor, Mugal Kanal, Market, Karnal, Haryana.

Local Office SCO 2463-2464, 1^st Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

                                     Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Darshan Kumar son of Om Parkash, resident of Village Pehwa, Kurukshetra, through its General Power of Attorney Balraj son of Hukni, resident of Village Mehmoodpur, Sonepat.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

                                   

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                            

 

Present:               Shri Punit Jain, Advocate for appellants.

Shri Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for the complainant

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

         A Bolero Jeep bearing registration No.HR-65-7423 was stolen on the intervening night of 06^th/07^th November, 2014 while parked outside the house of Balraj in the area of Police Station Sadar Gohana. First Information Report (F.I.R.) (Annexure-I) was registered in Police Station Sadar, Gohana under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code on the statement of Balraj. The vehicle was insured with Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company-opposite party (for short ‘Insurance Company’). Balraj filed claim before the Insurance Company. The claim was repudiated on the ground that insurance policy was in the name of Darshan Kumar and he had sold the vehicle to Devendra and Devendra further sold to Balraj, so, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the owner. Darshan Kumar filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short ‘District Forum’). The District Forum allowed the complaint vide order dated July 14^th, 2016 and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.2,59,186/- to Darshan Kumar-complainant.

2.      In appeal, Insurance Company has challenged the aforesaid order.

3.      It is not in dispute that the vehicle was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy. In the F.I.R. (Annexure R-14), it was specifically stated by Balraj that he purchased the vehicle from Devendra to whom the vehicle was sold by Darshan Kumar. The claim was also filed by Balraj stating the facts which he mentioned in the F.I.R. Not only that the complaint was filed in the name of Darshan Kumar but it was signed by Balraj showing himself to be General Power of Attorney of Darshan Kumar.   Insurance Company also placed on record affidavit (Annexure R-9) of Devendra Kumar before the District Forum whereby he stated that he had sold the vehicle to Balraj.  With this overwhelming evidence on record, it is clear that before the date of loss, the vehicle had already been sold to Balraj, who had no insurable interest at the material time of incident.   

4.      Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shyam Bansal, I (2017), CPJ, 410 (NC) held as under:- 

          7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards delivery receipt issued by All India Car Dealer’s Association, which has been signed by complainant as well as purchaser Anil Nagpal on 5.8.2009. As per this receipt Anil Nagpal purchased this vehicle from complainant on 5.8.2009 and Anil Nagpal promised to get vehicle transferred in his name within 15 days of purchase and it was confirmed that vehicle was sold on “as is where is” basis and purchaser had paid full payment to the owner of the vehicle. Thus, it becomes clear that on the date of obtaining insurance as well as on the date of accident complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle as vehicle had already been sold by the complainant to Anil Nagpal on 5.8.2009. Learned State Commission dismissed appeal on the ground that registration certificate was still in the name of the complainant so complainant was owner of the vehicle. This observation is contrary to record and law because once it is established that complainant had sold vehicle to Anil Nagpal on 5.8.2009, merely because Anil Nagpal not got it transferred in his name, complainant does not remain owner of the vehicle. Anil Nagpal committed illegality in obtaining insurance of the vehicle in the name of previous owner Shyam Bansal whereas he should have got vehicle transferred in his name and got insurance policy in his own name. As complainant had neither any insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of accident nor any insurable interest at the time of accident, opposite party has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in IV (2012) CPJ 639 (NC), Dharambir v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., in which revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as vehicle was sold to third party before it was stolen. In the case in hand, vehicle had already been sold by complainant to Anil Nagpal on 5.8.2009 whereas accident took place on 14.2.2011. So complainant had no insurable interest even at the time of obtaining insurance policy and at the time of accident and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is to be allowed.”

5.      For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

6.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 15.09.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK