BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 257 of 2013
                            Date of institution:-23.12.2013
                            Date of decision:-2.6.2016
Balwan Singh son of Sh. Baldev Singh resident of house No.110/271 Bhagwan Nagar, Rohtak road, Jind, Tehsil and District Jind.

                                       ...Complainant.
Versus
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Rohtak through its Branch Manager, Branch Office Rohtak, Tehsil and District Rohtak. 
                                          …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. H.S. Lather Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. J.B. Goyal Adv.for opposite party. 
            
Order:-
        In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant  is registered owner of  Truck   bearing registration No. HR-56A-3374 and the vehicle was purchased after getting financial assistance from Cholamandalam Investment and Finance company Ltd. SCO 57,2nd floor, Red Square market, Hisar and paying the installments well in time. The complainant authorized one Sh. Shish 
            Balwan Singh Vs. RGIC
                    …2…
Pal son of Sh. Hawa Singh r/o Julana to supervise  the functioning of  the truck. The complainant insured the above said truck  for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- vide  cover note No.110000008269 and policy No.2013702334000761  valid w.e.f. 26.5.2010 to 25.5.2011with the opposite party and paid a sum of Rs.17,697/- as premium.  It is alleged that on the intervening night of 17/18.8.2010 the above said truck was parked  in front the house of Shish  Pal situated near JBM college Shadipur, Julana and when in the morning he woke up he did not found the truck in question which has been stolen by unknown person. Thereafter, Shish Pal searched out the truck at his own level but could not be traced the same, he informed the police about the theft of the truck and got lodged FIR No.183 dated 18.8.2010 U/s 379 IPC in P.S. Julana. The complainant informed the opposite party immediately regarding theft of his truck. The complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party and submitted all the necessary documents. The opposite party had illegally without any cogent grounds has not settled the claim of the complainant. 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.6,50,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. as well as to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony 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 
            Balwan Singh Vs. RGIC
                    …3…
hands before this Forum and complaint is not maintainable in the present forum. On merits, it is contended that the matter of alleged theft  was investigated through Royal Associates, Investing and Detective Agency and during the course of investigation, the complainant got recorded his statement with Investigator that he has sold the above said truck to Sh. Shish Pal s/o Hawa Singh r/o Shadipur, Julana, District Jind and since the date of sale of above said truck to Shish Pal, this vehicle is in possession of Shish Pal and he is making payment of installment of the loan to the financer and complainant admitted that he has no concern or connection with the truck in question. Shish Pal was actual owner of  the truck, however, he has not got changed the ownership of above truck in his name in registration record and also not got the insurance policy changed in his name and the ownership of above said truck exists in the name of its previous owner i.e. complainant. In view of the above reasons and also due to clear cut violation of policy terms and conditions, the theft claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party vide letter dated 3.3.2011 and informed the complainant accordingly. In this way, complainant has no insurable interest. 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  his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of FIR Ex. C-2, copy of letter dated 14.3.2011 Ex. C-3, copy of letter dated 7.3.2011 Ex. C-4, copy of order dated 7.4.2011 Ex. C-5, copy of letter dated 24.9.2010 Ex. C-6, copy of proposal-
            Balwan Singh Vs. RGIC
                    …4…
cum- cover note Ex. C-7, copy of RC Ex. C-8, copy of certificate of fitness Ex. C-9, copy of permit Ex. C-10 and  copy of passenger  and goods taxation Act Ex. C-11 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite party has produced the affidavit of Sh. Amit Chawla, Deputy Manager Ex. OP-1, copy of letter dated 22.10.2010 Ex. OP-2, copies of couriers receipts Ex. OP-3, Ex. OP-5, Ex. OP-7and Ex. OP-9, copy of letter dated 12.10.2010 Ex. OP-4, copy of letter dated 29.9.2010 Ex. OP-6, copy of letter dated 20.9.2010 Ex. OP-8, copy of letter dated 1.9.2010 Ex. OP-10, copy of letter dated 1.1.2011 Ex. OP-11, copy of photographs Ex. OP-12, copy of statement of Balwan Singh Ex. OP-13, copy of statement of Shish Pal Lather Ex. OP-14, copy of statement of Pawan Kumar Ex. OP-15, copy of statement of Sandeep Lather Ex. OP-16, copy of statement of Ramesh Chander Ex. OP-17, copy of ration card Ex. OP-18,copy of FIR Ex. OP-19, copy of sale certificate Ex. OP-20, copy of RC Ex. OP-21, copies of policy schedule Ex. OP-22 and Ex. OP-23, copy of letter dated 3.3.2011 Ex. OP-24, copy of letter dated 16.2.2011 Ex. OP-25 and copy of letter dated 10.1.2011 Ex. OP-26 and closed the evidence.  
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  about one year back from the date of theft of vehicle to Sh. Shish Pal s/o Sh. Hawa Singh r/o Julana. We have perused the  statement of Sh. 
            Balwan Singh Vs. RGIC
                    …5…
Balwan Singh complainant Ex. OP-13 which is part of surveyor report Ex. OP-10  wherein Sh. Balwan Singh admitted that he hand over the truck bearing No. HR56A-3374 to Sh. Shish Pal and all the liability regarding the truck is of Sh. Shish Pal and as such he has no relation with truck in question. We have also gone through the statement of Sh. Shish Pal Ex. OP-14 which is also part of surveyor report Ex. OP-10 wherein Sh. Shish Pal also admitted that he has received the truck from Sh. Balwan Singh about one year ago and Sh. Kapta Singh driver ply the said truck and for this I am paying Rs.5000/- salary per month to the driver.   As such the statements of Sh. Balwan Singh and Shish Pal is corroborated  to each other. Apart this the complainant has not filed any evidence in the shape of affidavit he has not given the statement before the surveyor. Hence the  surveyor report cannot be ignored in the above circumstances. Besides this, we also gone through the FIR Ex. C-2 which is also registered on the application of Sh. Shish Pal as well as untraceable report  Ex. C-5 was also given by the Illaqua Magistrate on the request of Sh. Shish Pal.   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 
            Balwan Singh Vs. RGIC
                    …6…
interest in the subject vehicle, therefore, the subject 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 the statement recorded by the surveyor has no value in the eyes of law. He also relied upon the copy of insurance Ex. C-7 which is name of the complainant and insurance premium has been paid by the complainant to the company for the period from 26.5.2010 to 25.5.2011 in this way complainant had been renewing the insurance policy year to year. So the complainant having the insurable interest and is entitled for the amount of the vehicle in question which was stolen on the intervening night  of 17/18/8/2010  by unknown person and  FIR No.183 dated 18.8.2010 was lodged by Sh. Shish Pal user of the vehicle and he intimated the insurance company immediately and this truck is not traceable till now. We do not agree with the above contention of the complainant for the reason that  even if it was a case of renewal of insurance policy complainant was under obligation to inform the insurance company that subject vehicle has been sold to Shish Pal. From the above said discussion in para No.4 of the order that complainant has no insurable interest in the subject vehicle, therefore, subject insurance policy obtained by concealing the facts that complainant has insurable interest cannot be term as a valid insurable contract. 
6.    In view of the above said discussion and circumstances facts of the case as well as case law (Supra)  we are of the firm view that the 
            Balwan Singh Vs. RGIC
                    …7…
complainant is not having insurable interest because  he has already sold the vehicle in question  to Shish Pal before taking the cover note for the period 26.5.2010 to 25.5.2011 and Shish Pal had purchased the vehicle in question one year ago at the time of the vehicle in question was stolen.  As per his statement  Ex. OP-13 and as well as statement of  purchaser of the vehicle-Shish Pal Ex. OP-14 as such his insurance claim was rightly repudiated by the insurance company. The complainant 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: 2.6.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

                        Balwan Singh Vs. RGIC
                    
Present:-    Sh. H.S. Lather Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. J.B. Goyal Adv.for opposite party. 

                Remaining arguments heard.  To come up on  27.5.2016 for orders.

                                       President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                           24.5.2016
Present:-    Sh. H.S. Lather Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. J.B. Goyal Adv.for opposite party. 

                Order not ready.  To come up on  2.6.2016 for orders.

                                       President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                           27.5.2016

Present:-    Sh. H.S. Lather Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. J.B. Goyal 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
                                           2.6.2016