Haryana

StateCommission

A/92/2020

KULDEEP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

HIMANSHU SHARMA

29 Oct 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                      First Appeal No.92 of 2020

                                                          Date of Institution:23.01.2020                                              Date of Decision:29.10.2020

 

Kuldeep Singh son of Shri Madan Mohan, R/o Village Berpura, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, Haryana (India) through his GPA-Mr. Vinay Kumar son of Shri Kamlesh Kumar, R/o House No.103/1668, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City, Haryana (India)

…..Appellant

Versus

 

The Manager, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. Regd., office at IFFCO Sadan, C-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 & Branch office at 6330,IInd Floor, above Dena Bank, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt.-133001.

 

…..Respondent

 

Present:-             Mr.Sudhanshu Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

                            

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President.

                             Mr. Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.

 

O R D E R

 

HARNAM SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

                   It has been alleged by complainant-appellant that he is the registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No.HR37-C-8678 (in short “vehicle in question”) and the same was insured with opposite party (in short “OP”) vide policy No.89161346 dated 24.09.2014 for a period from 25.09.2014 to 24.09.2015, having Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.10,07,000/-. It was alleged that in the night of 03.09.2015, he parked his truck, under a bridge opposite to Petrol Pump, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City and in the morning on 04.09.2015, the truck was missing from the parked spot. He immediately intimated the police and on 26.09.2015, police registered the FIR No.271 u/s 379 of IPC, PS Baldev Nagar. The police was unable to find the truck and finally submitted the report u/s 173 (2) of Cr.PC in the concerned Court. Complainant registered his claim with the OP  and the OP deputed an investigator. Thereafter, the complainant submitted all the requisite documents with the OP. It was further alleged that inspite of submitting all the requisite documents, the OP did not process his claim. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of OP.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP by alleging that the GPA does not fall within the ambit of competent person to approach the Court claiming to be a consumer because the claimant Mr. Vinay Kumar admitted in his statement that he purchased the vehicle from Kuldeep Singh through GPA. The contents of the GPA itself prove that the vehicle has been sold to Mr. Vinay Kumar, so the policy holder Mr. Kuldeep Singh sold the vehicle to Mr. Vinay Kumar and transferred his rights in favour of purchaser through power of attorney. The claimant Mr. Vinay Kumar was the actual owner of the vehicle at the time of theft, so the insurable interest of Mr. Kuldeep Singh terminated on the insured vehicle with its sale. It was further submitted that the FIR was registered on 26.09.2015 i.e. after lapse of 23 days and insurance company was informed on 08.09.2015 i.e. after 5 days regarding the alleged theft in violation of condition No.1 of the insurance policy. It was further submitted that the complainant failed to submit the sets of original ignition and cabin keys of stolen vehicle despite of repeated requests and reminders. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.               After hearing both the parties by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala  (In short “District Commission”) dismissed the complaint of complainant.

4.               Feeling aggrieved therefreom, appellant-complainant has preferred this appeal.

5.                The arguments have been advanced by Sh.Sudhanshu Sharma, counsel for appellant-complainant. With his kind assistance the entire records had been properly perused and examined.

6.                During the course of arguments, it is contended by learned counsel for appellant/complainant that impugned order passed by learned District Forum is perverse, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law. The claim of complainant could not have been declined merely on the grounds of delay in lodging F.I.R. and intimation to the insurance company. In support of his arguments, learned counsel placed reliance upon “M/s Sonell Clocks and Gifts Ltd Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (Civil Appeals No. 1217-1218 of 2017) decided on 21.08.2018” and “Om Prakash Vs. Reliance Insurance Company (Civil Appeal No. 15611 of 2017) decided on 04.10.2017.

7.                It is further argued by learned counsel for appellant/claimant that on the date of filing of the complaint, he was registered owner of the vehicle in question and the complaint has been filed through his General Power of Attorney Sh. Vinay Kumar. He never sold the vehicle in question to said Vinay Kumar. In support of his arguments learned counsel placed reliance upon “Surendra Kumar Bhilawe Vs The New India Insurance Company ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2632 of 2020) decided on 18.06.2020”, wherein it has been held that in view of the definition of ‘owner’ in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant remained the owner of the said truck on the date of the accident and the insurer could not have avoided its liability for the losses suffered by the owner on the ground of transfer of ownership to Mohammad Iliyas Ansari. It is submitted by learned counsel for complainant/appellant that impugned order passed by learned District Forum may be set aside by accepting the appeal.

8.                After hearing learned counsel for appellant/complainant and careful perusal of the record as well as legal authorities (supra) cited and relied upon before us, we are of the considered view that there is no insurable interest of the appellant/complainant after sale of the vehicle in question.

9.                At the outset, so far as contention of learned counsel for appellant/complainant that complaint could not be rejected on the technical grounds of delay in lodging F.I.R. and intimation to insurance company. We agree to this contention that such delay as in the case in hand is condonable and in view of the authorities i.e. “M/s Sonell Clocks and Gifts Ltd Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (Civil Appeals No. 1217-1218 of 2017) decided on 21.08.2018” and “Om Prakash Vs. Reliance Insurance Company (Civil Appeal No. 15611 of 2017) decided on 04.10.2017”, the complaint cannot be dismissed on the sole technical grounds of delay in reporting to police and information to the insurance company regarding the theft incident.

10.              However, so far as the contention of insurable interest of complainant in the vehicle in question is concerned, we find that with execution of GPA Annexure C1 dated 11.06.2014 in favour of Sh. Vinay Kumar, the complainant Sh. Kuldeep Singh has left with no insurable interest particularly when it is the case of Sh. Vinay Kumar that he has purchased the vehicle in question from Sh. Kuldeep Singh through GPA Annexure C1 and to that effect statement of Sh. Vinay Kumar is on the record. The authority (supra) “Surendra Kumar Bhilawe Vs The New India Insurance Company ltd” relied upon by learned counsel for complainant/appellant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. With due deference to the authority (supra) of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is distinguishable because no such GPA was executed by registered owner in that case in favour of the purchaser. Rather recitals contained in GPA Annexure C1 reveal that by virtue of the said General Power of Attorney, complainant has sold the vehicle in question to said Vinay Kumar by giving its possession and absolute right to further sell the vehicle in question to any other person as is evident from Para No. 13 inter alia of the said GPA Annexure C1 which is as under:-

(13)   “To sell and dispose of the vehicle under his own  affidavit and to sign transfer/Govt. papers of the    vehicle on my behalf.”

11.              This recital in Para No. 13 shows that there is practice of selling the vehicle by way of affidavit or otherwise without transferring the registration number in favour of proposed buyer even said Vinay Kumar could have signed Form 29 and other forms for transfer of RC, Insurance Policy, Route permits etc. by virtue of GPA Annexure C1. Under these circumstances, it is crystal clear that complainant Sh. Kuldeep Singh had sold the vehicle in question to said Vinay Kumar for all intend and purpose and he had left with no insurable interest in the said vehicle. This fact is further evident from the complaint itself that the complaint in question has been filed by Sh. Kuldeep Singh through his GPA Sh. Vinay Kumar. If at all, the said vehicle was not sold by complainant to said Sh. Vinay Kumar then he could have filed the complaint independently after revoking the GPA Annexure C1 but he has not done so for the reasons best known to him. In these circumstances, the authority i.e. Surendra Kumar Bhilawe Vs The New India Insurance Company ltd (supra) is not applicable to the case in hand.

12.              As a sequel to above discussion, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by learned District Forum. Present appeal is devoid of any merits and the same is hereby dismissed in limine without any order of costs.
File be consigned to the records.

 

October 29^th, 2020               Harnam Singh Thakur                       T.P.S. Mann                                                  Judicial Member                               President      

 

M.K