DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 709 OF 2010 Date of Institution : 29.10.2010 Date of Decision : 22.07.2011 Suresh Kumar s/o Sh.Basant Lal, R/o H.No.1457/1, Block-K, Colony No.5, Sector 45,U.T., Chandigarh, (Presently R/o H.No.2596, Near Housing Board Complex, Opposite Gate No.3, Sector 52, Chandigarh) through his General Power of Attorney Sh.Jawahar Lal Chaudhary S/o Sh.Murat Chaudhary, R/o H.No.1421/1, Block-K, Colony No.5, Sector 45, U.T., Chandigarh (Presciently residing at Village Lohgarh, Police Station Pinjore, District Panchkula). ---Complainant. V E R S U S1] Reliance General Insurance, Regional Office, SCO No.212-214, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager. 2] Cholamandalam, DBS Finance Limited, SCO No.2423-2424, IInd Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager. ---Opposite PartiesBEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Mohinder Kumar, Adv. for the complainant. None for OP-2 Sh.R.K.Bashamboo, Adv. for OP-1 PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER 1] The instant complaint relates to an unpaid claim of insurance by the OPs. The complainant has stated that he is a registered owner of a Mahindra Bolero Caper Pickup duly insured with the OP-1 from 20.7.2009 to 19.7.2010. The vehicle was bought by taking loan from OP-2, hence it is hypothecated with OP-2. A General Power of Attorney Annexure C-1 has also been executed in favour of Sh.Jawahar Lal Chaudhary for handling the said vehicle. In the intervening night of 25/26 July, 2009, the vehicle was stolen. An F.I.R. was registered with Police Station Pinjore, Panchkula and thereafter, the complainant approached OP-1 and lodged his claim. All necessary formalities as per instructions of OP-1 were complied with by the complainant. The Untraced Report has also been provided. Unfortunately, OP-1 has repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant on the ground that the insured vehicle has been transferred in the name of Mr.Jawahar Lal. Hence as per the OPs, the complainant did not have any insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of theft and Mr.Jawahar Lal was not a party to the insurance contract. As per the complainant the vehicle has never been transferred to Mr.Jawahar Lal or any other person, hence the OP-1 has wrongly repudiated his claim. The complainant has prayed that OP-1 be directed to make payment of the insurance claim along with interest and compensation. 2] After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the parties. OP-1 in its reply has admitted the theft of the vehicle. When the Investigator M/s. Royal Associates were appointed to investigate the claim, the complainant informed the Investigator that the vehicle had already been sold on 25.8.2008 to Mr.Jawahar Lal and as such he has nothing to do with the said vehicle. Even Mr.Jawahar Lal when contacted said that he was the actual owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was stolen when it was parked in front of his house. Statements of both the complainant and Mr.Jawahar Lal were recorded and got signed. Even in the F.I.R. Mr.Jawahar Lal has been stated to be the owner of the vehicle. Copy of the Agreement of Sale, Receipt of Rs.1,30,000/- as consideration, as well as affidavit of the complainant has been placed on record showing that the complainant is not the owner of the vehicle and hence has no insurable interest on the vehicle. On the basis of the report of the Investigator, the OPs had informed the complainant and asked him to explain his position. As no reply was received, hence the claim was repudiated on 12.3.2010. Further, OP-1 has submitted that the claim was lodged by Mr.Jawahar Lal under his own signature and at no time had he said that he is the attorney of the complainant. No claim was lodged by the complainant. As per OP-1, the claim is hence not maintainable in favour of the complainant. On merits also OP-1 has reiterated the sale of vehicle; document executed between the parties regarding sale of the vehicle and theft from the house of Mr.Jawahar Lal as well as the F.I.R. lodged by Mr.Jawahar Lal. Denying all other allegations, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint. OP-2 in its reply has stated that the complainant is a defaulter in repayment of loan amount, hence any amount payable against the insurance claim, should be paid to them and not to the complainant. On merits, OP-2 has stated that all averments made by the complainant in the complaint refers to OP-1, hence there is no cause of action against OP-2. They have prayed that the payment of insurance claim be made to OP-2 only. 3] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 4] As none appeared on behalf of OP-2 on 15.7.2011, when the case was fixed for arguments, we therefore proceed to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) even in absence of OP-2. We have heard the ld.Counsel for complainant and ld.Counsel for OP-1 and have also perused the record. complainant. 5] The agreement placed on record dated 25.8.2008 clearly shows that the complainant has sold the vehicle to Mr.Jawahar Lal for Rs.1,30,000/-. A receipt and affidavit regarding this payment has also been placed on record. The F.I.R. has been lodged by the new owner Mr.Jawahar Lal. However, the insurance still stands in the name of the complainant. The complainant is silent why he has not transferred the insurance of the vehicle in name of the new owner. There is no Registration Certificate placed on record by the complainant to show the actual ownership of the vehicle in question. In such a situation, the version of OP-1 has to be believed since it is based on factual evidence. The complainant is no more the owner of the vehicle, hence he has no insurable interest in the vehicle. Moreover, the complainant has also not been able to make out any case of deficiency in service by OP-2, hence, in our view, they have unnecessarily been impleaded as a party to this complaint. 6] In view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that the complaint has no merit. We accordingly dismiss the complaint in totality against both OPs No.1 & 2. No order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. After compliance, The file be consigned to the Record Room. Announced 22.07.2011 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT
(MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
