ORDER

SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT

         The complainant is the registered owner of a Car Qualis bearing registration no. DL 7C-C8264.  He had purchased a policy of insurance from the OP which was valid for the period 29.4.20134 to 28.4.2014.     It is alleged by the complainant that the car was damaged in heavy floods on 16.6.2013 at Dehradun and was washed away.  The complainant had lodged a claim with the OP for the loss of the car which was repudiated vide letter dated 17.1.2014.  The complainant has alleged that he repudiation of the claim is unwarranted and uncalled for and is a part of deficiency n the par t of the Op . Hence, the complaint.

                The OP has contested the complaint and has filed a written statement.

    It has denied any deficiency in service on its part and has claimed that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant had suppressed material facts and has   not approached the forum with clean hands.

            The OP has claimed that the complainant had no insurable interest at the time of the loss and , therefore,  the claim was payable to him. It has prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

            We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

On behalf of the OP an affidavit has been filed by  Sh. Ram an AM / Representative Authorized of the OP. Paras 2 to 4 of his affidavit are relevant for the purposes of the decision of this complaint and are reproduced as under:

2.That the complainant has no insurable interest in respect of the vehicle in question, as the complainant had sold the vehicle bearing no. DL 7C C 8264 to Mr. Jarnail Singh, S/o Sh. Jeewan Singh, R/o A-272, Jahangirpuri, Delhi-110033 (Attorney of the complainant through whom the present complaint has filed) on 16.08.2007 and an affidavit in this regard has been executed by the complainant along with other documents i.e. G.P.A., From No. 29 & 30 as well as the application for transfer of Insurance policy. But, the said Jarnail Singh failed to get transferred theof the said vehicle in his name and despite becoming the owner of the said vehicle, the said Jarnail Singh got renewed the policy in the name of the complainant, who does not have the insurable interest in the said vehicle and the policy no.360400/31/13/6165000257 valid from 29-4-2013 to 28-4-2014 issued by the opposite party for the said vehicle is in the name of the complainant for a total IDV of Rs.1,74,900/- though the complainant has no insurable interest in the said vehicle. Moreover, as per the version of the complainant the said vehicle was lost in flood/rock sliding on 16.06.2013 in Hemkunt Sahab, Uttrakhand and the said accident was took place due to natural calamity at Gobind Ghat parking and the accident caused due to natural calamity like flood, earth-quack, rock sliding etc., act of God, riots, war are not covered under the policy. However, the opposite party rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as he has no insurable interest in respect of the vehicle in question.

3.      That at the time of the alleged accident, the vehicle in question was

Owned/possessed and plied by Mr. Jarnail Singh and in his statement made before the surveyor, the said Jarnail Singh himself revealed that he had purchased the vehicle in question from the complaint long time ago and is plying the same through his son. It is further submitted that the said vehicle was lost in flood/rock;) sliding on 16.06.2013 in Hemkunt Sahab, Uttrakhand and the said accident was took place due to natural calamity at Gobind Ghat parking and the accident caused due to natural calamity like flood, earth-quack, rock sliding etc., act of God, riots, war are not covered under the policy.

4.That there is no relation between the complainant and the opposite

party as consumer and service provider as the complainant had already been sold out the vehicle in question to Mr. Jarnail Singh, his attorney and the said vehicle was used and plied by Mr. Jarnail Singh as submitted/stated by the said Jarnail Singh during the investigation/survey conducted by the opposite party, therefore, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. The opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant in complaint and rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant due to the reasons as detailed in preceding paras above.  

In view of the affidavits, filed on record we are unable to hold any deficiency in service on the part of the OP .  We are inclined to hold that the complainant had sold away the vehicle in question to Mr. Jarnail Singh in 2007 and had been left with no insurable interest in the vehicle in question.  We, therefore, see no merits in this complaint. The same is hereby dismissed.

    Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. 

    File be consigned to record room.

    Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................