Haryana

StateCommission

A/983/2018

SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAVIT - Opp.Party(s)

INDERJIT SINGH

07 Mar 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                             

 

First Appeal No :  983 of 2018

Date of Institution: 16.08.2018

Date of Decision : 07.03.2019

 

 

 

SBI General Insurance Company, Anand Plaza, II Floor, Chotu Ram Chowk, Civil Road, Rohtak, Haryana through Shri Jitendra Dhabhai, Deputy Manager, SBI General Insurance Company Limited, 7-B, Metro Pillar No.153, Pusa Road, Rajendra Park, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110060.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

 

Versus

 

 

 

 

Ravit son of Randhir Singh, resident of Village and Post Office Kakrol, District Sonepat, Haryana.

 Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

 

 

 

Argued by:          Shri Yugansh Siwach, counsel for the appellant.

                             Shri Saurabh Dalal, counsel for the respondent.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

          The opposite party has filed the present appeal for challenging the order dated 11.06.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak whereby complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stood allowed and the opposite party directed to pay Rs.4,31,145/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.

2.      According to the complainant, he was registered owner of Mahindra Bolero bearing registration No.HR-10-P-9366, which he got insured from the opposite party for the period from 05.01.2016 to 04.01.2017.  The said policy was comprehensive and all risks were covered thereunder. On 15.04.2016, the vehicle was stolen by some unknown person, when it was parked under the supervision of night watchman.  FIR was lodged and opposite party duly informed. The complainant completed all the formalities and lodged his claim for the stolen vehicle.  However, the opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant had already sold the vehicle 4-5 years back to one Rajesh and therefore, he had no insurable interest in the said vehicle.  Hence, the complaint.

3.      Upon issuance of notice, the opposite party put in appearance and filed written version stating therein that the complainant had already sold the vehicle to Rajesh, which fact was given by the complainant in his hand.  Even the Surveyor recorded the statement of Rajesh to the effect that he had purchased the vehicle in question from the complainant about four years ago for Rs.6,50,000/-.  Thus, the complainant had no insurable interest in the said vehicle and the repudiation was rightly made. 

4.      The sole issue involved in the appeal is that whether the complainant had any insurable interest in the vehicle on the date when it was stolen.  Exhibit R-4 is the statement of the complainant whereas Exhibit R-5 is the statement of Rajesh.  In their respective statements, they had stated about the vehicle being sold by the complainant to Rajesh.  However, fact remains that the complainant had obtained comprehensive policy for the loss caused to him on account of theft of his vehicle.  As such, the complainant deserves to receive Insured Declared Value of Rs.4,31,145/- from the opposite party.  The learned District Forum has rightly directed the opposite party to pay the aforementioned amount alongwith interest @ 9% per annum and also Rs.5,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.

5.      Finding no merit in the appeal, the Commission hereby dismisses the appeal.

6.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the opposite party at the time of filing the appeal be released in favour of the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any. 

 

Announced 07.03.2019

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

UK