Miss Gita Verma, Judicial Member

Dated: 07.03.2024

Order

1. This appeal by an insurance company (O.P. no. 1) has been filed against the order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Katihar in complaint case no. 13 of 2015 by which the complaint was allowed and the appellant was ordered to pay to the complainant-respondent Rs. 50141/- as the value of stolen motorcycle and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of the date of order failing which to pay the entire amount with 8% per annum interest thereon till the date of payment.
2. The case in short is that the complainant purchased a second hand motorcycle having registration number BR-11N-6690 from O.P. no. 3 on 13.07.2012. The motorcycle was insured with O.P. no. 1 from before under policy number 2012V1814842FTW for the period 19.05.2012-18.05.2013, the complainant got the ownership transferred to his name but he did not give any information to the insurance company. On midnight of 26.08.2012 the motorcycle was stolen from the house of the complainant by some unknown person. Korha PS case no. 357 of 2012 was instituted under section 379 IPC on the FIR of complainant in connection with the s aid theft against unknown. The stolen vehicle could not be recovered. The complainant filed claim before the insurance company but his claim was repudiated. Hence, the complaint.
3. The insurance company appeared and contested the case. It has been stated in the written statement that the insurance policy existed on the date of theft in the name of first Owner Vandana Devi. The complainant had not got the name of owner changed in the policy by giving information to purchase and transfer of ownership to it. So, the claim was not maintainable.
4. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that so far insurance against theft is concerned, there was no contract between the insurance company and the complainant(second owner) to indemnify him for the loss sustained in case of theft of vehicle. That contract was only with the first owner (Vandana Devi). So, his client has righty repudiated the claim, but the District Forum has passed the impugned order without considering the ground. So, the impugned order is legally defective and as such it is liable to be set aside. He has supported his argument with a reported decision of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prem Prakash (2018) 2 CPJ 381 and another decision in case of V. Mahaboob Basha and Anr. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd (2011) 4 CPJ 193. This argument has not been replied by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent. Considering the aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of the appellant. The appeal is allowed on contest and the impugned order is set aside. Parties should bear their own cost.

Md. Shamim Akhtar                                                                                                       Gita Verma

 Judicial Member                                                                                                        Judicial Member

Md. Fariduzzama