BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 87 of 2015
                            Date of institution:-9.7.2015
                            Date of decision:-26.5.2016
Dinesh Kumar s/o Sh. Bhim Singh r/o Malvi, Tehsil Julana, District Jind(Haryana).

                                       ...Complainant.
Versus
The National Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, Jind. 
                                          …Opposite party.
Complaint under section 12 of
                Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.    
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.
            
Present:-    Sh. Sanjay Kangra Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. K.K. Mittal, Adv.for opposite party. 
            
Order:-
        In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant  is registered owner of  motor-cycle Splendor Plus  bearing registration No. HR31E-9801 and the same was got insured  for a sum of Rs.23,550/-with the opposite party vide policy No. 39010231136201118823 valid w.e.f. 28.6.2013 to 27.6.2014 after making the payment of requisite premium. It is alleged that few days 
            Dinesh Kumar Vs. NIC
                …2…
prior to the theft of the motor-cycle one Rattan s/o Sh. Gordhan  r/o Lajwana Kalan, Tehsil Julana came at the house of complainant and demanded the motor-cycle for few days. The complainant had given the motor-cycle to his friend for few days for personal use. The above said motor-cycle was stolen by some unknown person on 6.10.2013 at about 4/5 A.M. while it was parked by Kishore Kumar in front of the house No.10, D.C. Colony, Kurukshetra in locked condition. Intimation regarding the theft of motor-cycle was given to the police and on the statement of said Kishore Kumar FIR No.819 dated 6.10.2013 under Section 379 IPC was got registered in P.S. Thanesar City, District Kurukshetra. The complainant informed the opposite party  immediately regarding the theft of his motor-cycle. The complainant lodged claim amount with the opposite party and submitted all the necessary documents. The opposite party had wrongly rejected the claim of complainant vide letter dated 23.6.2014 by saying that insured had concealed the fact of sale of the motor-cycle from the insurance company. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite party be directed to pay the  claim amount  of Rs.23,550/-, a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony  as well as to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. 
2.    Pursuant to notice, the opposite party appeared and filed the written reply agitating that the complainant has got no cause of action  to file the present complaint; the complainant has not come with clean 
            Dinesh Kumar Vs. NIC
                …3…
hands before this Forum and this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint As para No.4 of the written reply it is contended that Dinesh Kumar has already sold the vehicle under insurance on 12.10.2012 to Sh. Rattan s/o Sh. Gordhan r/o village Lajwana Kalan, Tehsil Julana vide affidavit dated 14.12.2013. On merits, it is contended that the motor-cycle of the complainant was stolen on 6.10.2013 but the theft of motor-cycle was intimated by the complainant to the opposite party on 10.10.2013 i.e. after an inordinate delay of 4 days. There is a willful violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 23.6.2014 on the ground of delay  intimation to the company regarding theft of motor-cycle.  All the other allegations have been denied by the opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost  is prayed for.  
3.    In evidence, the complainant has  produced the copy of RC Ex. C-1, copies of policy schedule Ex. C-2  and Ex. C-3, copy of FIR Ex. C-4 and affidavit of complainant Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite party has produced the affidavit of Sh.   Raj Kishore Ex. OP-1, affidavit of Sonia Madan Adv. Ex. OP-2, copy of letter Ex. OP-3, copy of letter dated 6.1.2014 Ex. OP-4, copy of affidavit of Dinesh Kumar Ex. OP-5, copy of statement of Kishor Kumar Ex. OP-6, copy of FIR Ex. OP-7, copy of motor-claim form Ex. OP-8, copy of RC Ex. OP-9, copy of document Ex. OP-10 and copy of letter dated 22.6.2014 Ex. OP-11 and closed the evidence. 
            Dinesh Kumar Vs. NIC
                …4…
4.    We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. The main contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has not insurable interest because the complainant had already sold the vehicle under insurance on 12.10.2012 to Sh. Rattan Singh s/o Sh. Gordhan r/o Village Lajwana Kalan, Tehsil Julana, District Jind, which is clear from the document affidavit Ex. OP-5.  In this regard Dinesh Kumar has sworn affidavit on 14.12.2012 in favour of Rattan Singh and it is clear from the FIR Ex. OP-7 that the motor-cycle in question was in possession of Kishore Kumar s/o Raj Kishan. We have also perused the statement of Kishore Kumar (Ex.OP-6) which was given to the Surveyor who investigated the matter. He admitted that the motor-cycle was given to me by my father-in-law Rattan Singh. He also admitted in the statement that Dinesh Kumar has sold the vehicle in question to my father-in-law on 14.12.2012. This statement is corroborated with the affidavit sworn by Dinesh Kumar in favour of Rattan Singh. Ld. counsel for opposite parties relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.3727 of 2014 titled as New Delhi-110015 Vs. Anita Mahajan & another decided on 23.5.2016, ‘wherein it has been held that ‘the subject vehicle was sold by the complainantNo.1 to complainant No.2 on 18.3.2008 and the possession of the car was also delivered to the complainant No.2 on the same day. From this, it is clear that after having sold the vehicle on 18.3.2008, complainant No.1-Anita Mahajan was left no insurable interest in the subject vehicle, therefore, the subject 
            Dinesh Kumar Vs. NIC
                …5…
insurance policy obtained by Anita Mahajan on 22.3.2008 by concealment that she had insurable interest, cannot be termed as a valid insurance contract’. 
5.    On the other hand, Ld. counsel for complainant opposed the above said argument that affidavit in question has not been attested by any attesting authority so the affidavit could not be relied upon. He also relied upon the copy of insurance Ex. C-2 which is name of the complainant and insurance premium has been paid by the complainant to the company for the period from 28.6.2012 to 27.6.2013 so the  claim of the complainant has wrongly been repudiated on the ground that the complainant having no insurable interest. In this way, the  complainant is entitled for the amount of the vehicle in question which was stolen on 6.10.2013 by unknown person and  FIR No.819 dated 6.10.2013 was lodged by Kishore Kumar user of the vehicle and he intimated the insurance company immediately and this motor-cycle is not traceable till now. 
6.    In view of the above said discussion, we are of the firm view that the complainant is not having insurable interest because  he has already sold the vehicle in question on 12.10.2012 vide Ex. OP-5 copy of affidavit  given by the complainant to Sh. Rattan Singh who is the purchaser of the vehicle by complainant  besides this  Kishore Kumar who is user of the vehicle  had made the statement before the surveyor that my father-in-law Rattan Singh had purchased the vehicle on 12.10.2012 from the complainant  as such his insurance claim has rightly been  repudiated by the insurance company. The complainant 
            Dinesh Kumar Vs. NIC
                …6…
has failed to prove his case, so the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 26.5.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

                    Dinesh Kumar Vs. NIC
                
Present:-    Sh. Sanjay Kangra Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. K.K. Mittal, Adv.for opposite party. 

                Remaining arguments heard.  To come up on  26.5.2016 for orders.

                                       President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                           20.5.2016

Present:-    Sh. Sanjay Kangra Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. K.K. Mittal, Adv.for opposite party.
 
        Order announced. Vide our separate order of the even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 
                                                                                            President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                           26.5.2016