Smt.Anju Bala, complainant has filed the present complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called 'the Act') has prayed for necessary directions to the opposite parties namely i) The National Insurance Company Limited, Pathankot (hereinafter called the OP1) and ii) Managing Director, National Insurance Company Limited, Kolkata (hereinafter called as the OP2) to release the claim amount of Rs.17,50,000/- to her alongwith Rs.50,000/- for loss of interest, mental agony and harassment and Rs.1,00,000/- on account of damages caused to her alongwith interest @ 18% PA w.e.f. the date of theft i.e. 18.12.2013 till realization of the whole amount.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that she owned truck No.PB-06L-2429, Mode 2010 Make Tata Motors bearing Chassis No.MAT466372ASE04770 Engine No.OID62866951 and insured the same vide cover note No.401111227190 on 31.5.2012 valid upto 30.5.2013 after paying the premium to the tune of Rs.38,227/- including the theft risk. She employed one Lakhwinder Singh son of Sh.Manjit Singh resident of House No.201 Garden Colony, Dhaki Pathankot as Driver of the aforesaid vehicle. He was discharging his duties very diligently and honestly and was serving as Truck Driver with the applicant since 2011. However, the said truck was stolen on 18.12.2012 in the area of Katcha Berm of G.T.Road, Sarna and after conducting a thorough search, an F.I.R. No.124 dated 19.12.2012 was got registered Under Section 379 IPC. The OP was also duly intimated. She completed all the formalities, but the insurance companies vide its letter No.401500/31/14 dated 24.4.2014 repudiated her claim on the vague ground which amounts to deficiency in service on their part, hence, the present complaint with the desired relief duly prayed therein.
3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their joint written reply through their counsel, raising the preliminary objection that the complaint was not maintainable in the present form. Further it is stated that Smt.Anju Bala complainant has purchased the vehicle truck bearing No.PB-06L-2429 by raising loan from financer i.e. TATA MOTORS. That Anju Mahajan being borrower unable to pay the installments of loan amount to financers i.e. TATA MOTORS, sold the truck to Lakhwinder Singh son of Manjit Singh, resident of Luxmi Garden Colony Pathankot in the year 2010 for Rs.22 lacs i.e. payment of Rs.8 lac given to the complainant Anju Mahajan and balance Rs.14 lacs was to be deposited with the financer TATA MOTORS by Lakhwinder Singh the purchaser. The FIR regarding theft of the vehicle Truck bearing No.PB-06L-2429 was lodged by Lakhwinder Singh. That Mr.Lakhwinder Singh also executed an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate Pathankot in 14.3.2013 declaring that he has purchased Truck bearing No.PB-06L-2429 from Mrs.Anju Bala/Anju Mahajan wife of Pardeep Kumar resident of VPO Begowal, Taragarh in the year 2010 against payment of Rs.8,00,000/- and balance payment of Rs.14,00,000/- was to be deposited with the financers and due to the pendency of loan he has not got the RC transferred in his name. This fact was also admitted by Smt.Anju Bala complainant vide her statement dated 23.3.2013. That from the facts mentioned above it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Smt.Anju Bala insured has sold the Truck to Lakhwinder Singh, Pathankot in the year 2010, but the insurance policy had not been got transferred in the name of Lakhwinder Singh purchaser in the record of opposite party and hence the policy has lapsed on account of sale of the vehicle. That at the time of alleged theft Smt.Anju Bala insured has no insurable interest in vehicle Truck, as she has already sold the abovesaid vehicle to Lakhwinder Singh much before the alleged theft of vehicle truck. So Smt.Anju Bala insured has breached the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence the complainant has miserably failed to prove insurable interest in vehicle Truck bearing No.PB-06L-2429 on the date of alleged theft, so this complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground; the complaint is without any cause of action, hence liable to be dismissed. On merits, the same objections have been repeated and the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.
4. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1, along with the other documents exhibited as Ex.C1 to Ex C6 and closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, Sh.Parveen Chadha Branch Manager, NIC Ltd. Gurdaspur has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 and of Sarv Daman Bhalla S.A. Ex.OP-2, along with the other documents exhibited as Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP16 and closed the evidence.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.
7. From the pleadings and evidence on record we find that the complainant got insured her truck with the opposite party for Rs.17,50,000/-. As per the version of the complainant, she had employed one Lakhwinder Singh son of Manjit Singh as driver of the vehicle i.e. Truck No.PB-06L-2429 and on 18.12.2012 the said truck was stolen by someone when it was parked at Sarna. FIR Ex.C3 was lodged by the driver. The police has not traced out the person who has stolen the truck and has even declared it is untraced. The complainant informed the opposite party about the occurrence but the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 24.4.2014 Ex.C4 on the ground that she had already sold the truck to Lakhwinder Singh son of Manjit Singh and as such at the time of theft “No insurable interest” existing the claim.
8. Opposite party in order to prove its case has placed on record copy of insurance policy Ex.OP3 showing that the complainant Anju Bala got her Truck bearing No.PB-06L-2429 insured with the opposite party for Rs.17,50,000/-. The opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant had already sold her truck to Lakhwinder Singh. After the theft of truck, the FIR was also got registered by the said Lakhwinder Singh. The opposite party produced on record affidavit of Lakhwinder Singh Ex.OP13 in which he has declared that he has purchased Truck bearing No.PB-06L-2429 from Mrs.Anju Bala wife of Sh.Pardeep Kumar in the year 2010 against payment of Rs.8,00,000/- (Eight lacs only) and balance payment of Rs.14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lacs) was to be deposited with the Financers TATA MOTORS. This fact was also admitted by Smt.Anju Bala complainant vide her statement Ex.OP7 where she has stated that she has sold her Truck to Lakhwinder Singh. The sale and purchase clearly shows that Lakhwinder Singh is the actual owner of the vehicle i.e. Truck bearing No.PB-06L-2429 on the date of occurrence and not Anju Bala the present complainant. The complainant has falsely concocted this story to gain unlawfully from the opposite party. The complainant Anju Bala has no insurable interest against the opposite party.
9. From the entire above discussion, it stands fully proved on record that the opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant because all the documents produced by the opposite party proved that the complainant has already sold the truck to Lakhwinder Singh and she has concocted a false story in order to get insurance claim from the opposite party. As such, we hold that the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.
(Naveen Puri)
President
Announced: (Jagdeep Kaur)
March 27, 2015 Member
*MK*