Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1033/2015

United India Ins. Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Navneet Meena s/o Ramsavroop Meena - Opp.Party(s)

Shubham Arora

22 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1033 /2015

 

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 20 Mohan House, Transport Nagar, Jaipur.

Vs.

 

Navneet Meena r/o 6/248 Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 22.3.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr. Shubham Arora & Mr.Sanjeev Arora counsel for the appellant

Mr.Mohammad Haroon counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the

2

 

learned DCF, Jaipur Ist dated 30.7.2015.

 

The only contention of the appellant is that the vehicle was transferred in the name of Yaseem Khan prior to the accident and there was no privity of contract between the Insurance Company and Yaseem Khan and the complainant-respondent was not having any insurable interest in the vehicle hence, the complaint should have been dismissed.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that he never sold the vehicle to Yaseem Khan still he is the registered owner and claim has rightly been allowed.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case.

 

The main defence of the appellant before the Forum below was that vehicle was sold to Yaseem Khan and to support this contention the statement of respondent Navneet Meena recorded during investigation proceedings is placed on record. It is true that it has been denied by the respondent but investigator Rajkamal Sisodia has stated on affidavit that

 

3

 

Navneet Meena has given statement Anx. R-2 to him which clearly contains the fact that vehicle was sold to Yaseem Khan before the accident. The appellant has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble National Commission in II (2015) CPJ 541 (NC) National Insurance Co. Vs. Gangaram Chaturbhuj, III (2011) CPJ 39 (NC) Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Kamal Tours, I (2011) CPJ 22 (NC) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri Divya Prashad and III (2015) CPJ 124 (NC) Mangal Engg. Works Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that he never sold the vehicle to Yaseem Khan but there was no occasion for the Forum below to disbelieve the statement given by the complainant to the investigator which clearly proves that vehicle has been sold to Yaseem Khan before the accident. The respondent has relied upon (1999) 3 SCC 754 G.Govindan Vs. New India Assurance Company where the dispute was as regard to third party risk which is a statutory obligation. Further reliance has been placed on II (2008) CPJ 364 (NC) National Insurance Co. Vs. Shrawan Bhati where there was no proof to the fact that sale is complete but here in the present case the respondent himself has admitted before the investigator that he has sold the vehicle prior to the accident and hence, the

4

 

complainant was not having insurable interest. He is not entitled for any relief and in view of the above the appeal is allowed and the order of the Forum below dated 30.7.2015 is set aside.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

nm