Oral

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal No.281 of 2011

1- Momil s/o Bashir Ahmad, R/o Village Pali,

    Post & District Bagpat, Present Address, 291A,

    Karawal Nagar, Delhi.

2- M/s Kopal Motor & General Finance Ltd.,

    2, Shanti Business Complex, Bagpat Road,

    Meerut through Shri Satendra Singh Pawar.  …Appellants.

Versus

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office,

Bhagwan Mahavir Marg, Railway Road Badaut,

District Bagpat through Branch Manager.       …Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Smt. Sudha Upadhyay, Member.

Sri Alok Sinha, Advocate for the appellant.

Sri A.K. Rai, Advocate for the respondent.

Date  13.6.2024

JUDGMENT

Per Sri Sushil Kumar,  Member-   This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19.1.2011 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Bagpat in complaint case no.20 of 2008, Momil & anr. vs. National insurance Co. Ltd., whereby the ld. District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint.

          As per case of the complainant, the complainant no.1 has purchased a truck Tata 407 registration no.DL 1LB 7231 on 8.1.2002 with the help of the financer complainant no.2 on hire purchase basis. The truck was insured on 7.10.2002 for Rs.1,50,000.00 which was valid from 7.10.2002 to 6.10.2003. The said truck was stolen on the night of 11/12.12.2002. The complainant informed the insurance company and filed the claim and submitted all the required documents. The claim of the complainant was repudiated on 4.10.2006. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint before the ld. District Forum which was dismissed.

          We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties. We have perused the judgment and order.

At the stage of hearing of this appeal, the appellant never tried to submit the registration certificate before this bench.

 As per provision of section 114 of the Evidence Act, this bench may presume that the registration certificate, if had been produced before this bench, it would have against the appellant/complainant. Since the registration certificate is not in the name of the complainant/appellant, he is not entitled to get the insurance policy/insurance claim in his name.

The registration certificate is an essential document on which basis any person may be entitled to get the insurance policy/insurance claim, if the vehicle is damaged or stolen during the existence of the insurance policy.

It is also worth to mention that the complainant never lodged any FIR at or after the incident of theft of the vehicle. A person named Yousuf who had lodged FIR. After investigation the police concluded that it is Mr. Yousuf who is owner of the vehicle and Yousuf was not made a party, he never applied for any insurance claim.

In these circumstances, the judgment of the ld. District Forum is based on the proper appreciation of the evidence that no insurable interest exists in favour of the complainant/ appellant. Hence, as per discussion made above,  the appeal deserves dismissal. 

ORDER

          Appeal is dismissed.

The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules. 

         (Sudha Upadhyay)                       (Sushil Kumar)

                Member                                       Member

Jafri, PA 1

Court 2