CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.389/2012

SH. GURU SHARAN SINGH GUJRAL

R/O D-15, JANGPURA-B,

NEW DELHI-110014

                                             …………. Complainant                                                                                        

Vs.

1.         M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

B-234, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-I,

NEW DELHI-110020

THROUGH ITS MANAGER

AND ALSO AT:-

DELHI REGIONAL OFFICE-II,

2/9 JHANDEWALAN EXTN.,

NEW DELHI-110055

                                                          …………..Respondent

                                                                     Date of Order:05.06.2015

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav, President

            The case of the complainant is that he is registered owner of Maruti Omni Car bearing registration NO.DL-2C-V-8179.  The same was duly insured with OP for the period from 11.10.2008 to 10.10.2009.  The said vehicle of complainant was stolen on 06.7.2009 and FIR bearing No.284/20096 u/s 379 IPC was lodged at P.S. H. Nizamuddin, New Delhi.  The said vehicle was not found ultimately the Police filed untraceable report  The complainant filed insurance claim in respect of this vehicle with OP and OP vide letter dated 18.2.2011 repudiated the claim of complainant.  It is stated that there was no justification for repudiation of the claim of complainant and there was deficiency in service on the part of OP. 

Complainant has prayed for insurance claim of Rs.85,500/- alongwith 12% from the date of filing the claim and also for compensation for Rs.1 lakh and litigation charges for Rs.25,000/-.

            OP in the written statement took the plea that the claim was repudiated on the ground that complainant sold the vehicle in question to Sh. I.P.S. Suri for Rs.1,15,000/- in January 2009.  Since Sh. I.P.S. Suri was the owner of the said vehicle at the time of alleged theft, complainant was left with no insurable interest at the time of theft and not entitled for the claim. 

In the rejoinder, complainant has stated that the vehicle in question was not sold to anyone as such question of transfer of the vehicle and insurance could not arise and the complainant being the registered owner and insured is entitled to the insurance claim and compensation.

We have heard Ld. Counsels for parties and perused the record carefully as well as gone through the evidence made by the parties. 

            OP has proved on record that after receiving the application for claim, they have appointed Delta Detective as Investigator.  During investigation statement of complainant was recorded by the investigator wherein he stated that he has sold the vehicle in question in January 2009 for Rs.1,15,000/- to Mr. I.P.S. Suri and all the documents of sale were signed by him.  The statement was duly signed by the complainant.  It is clear form the report of the Investigator that the vehicle in question was sold by the complainant to Mr. I.P.S. Suri.  It is also significant to note that the report regarding theft of the vehicle was not lodged by the complainant rather the same was lodged by the purchaser i.e. Mr. I.P.S., Suri wherein he has stated that he parked his said car opposite his shop at 743 Mathura road, Bhogal on 06.7.2009 and on the next day when came to the shop, he found that his car has been stolen.

            Since the car in question was already sold to Mr. I.P.S. Suri and he was owner of the car at the time of theft, the insurance company was perfectly justified in repudiating the claim.  Reliance is placed on the case of New Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ashok Kr. II(2013) CPJ 162(NC) - in that case, the car was purchased by a person and the car was stolen.  The insurance was in the name of original owner of the car.  It was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that complainant failed to inform insurance co. about the transfer of the policy in his name (within fourteen days).  He also did not apply for transfer of vehicle in his name.  He has not acquired any insurable interest in the stolen vehicle on the date of theft.  Insurance company is not liable to pay the claim in case of theft of vehicle.

            In this case complainant has already sold the car to one Mr. I.P.S. Suri and the policy was not transferred in the name of Mr. I.P.S. Suri.  Once the vehicle has been sold by the complainant, he was left with no insurable interest in the vehicle in question.  He ceases to be the owner of the vehicle hence insurance company is not liable to pay the claim.  The complaint is dismissed.

            Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

                 (EHTESHAM-UL-HAQ)                                       (A.S. YADAV)

                       MEMBER                                                          PRESIDENT