STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No  :     488 of 2017

Date of Institution:    21.04.2017

Date of Decision :     21.09.2018

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, through Manager, Registered and Head Office Dere House, 2^nd Floor, No.2, NSC Bose Road, Chennai.

Local Address :- SCO 2463-2464, 1^st Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

                                     Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

1.      Vijay Kumar son of Shri Krishan Chand, resident of House No.24C, near Aggarwal Dharamshala, Ukalana Mandi, District Hisar.

2.      Neki Ram son of Gopi Ram, resident of Village Budha Khera, Tehsil Ukalana, District Hisar.

                                      Respondents No.1 & 2-Complainants

3.      IndusInd bank, Opposite Main Telephone Exchange, Square Market, Hisar.

Respondent No.3-Opposite Party No.2 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

Argued by:          Shri Punit Jain, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainants-respondents No.1 & 2

Shri B.R. Madan, Advocate for the respondent No.3

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

          Neki Ram-complainant No.2 was owner of truck bearing registration No.HR39B-4915. The truck was insured with Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party No.1 (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) for the period July 05^th, 2014 to July 04^th, 2015.  Neki Ram sold the truck to Vijay Kumar-complainant No.1 on December 14^th, 2012 as has been pleaded by the complainants in paragraph No.2 of the complaint. The registration certificate and the insurance policy continued in the name of Neki Ram even after sale of the truck.  The truck was stolen on February 18^th, 2015.  First Information Report (FIR) No.64 was registered in Police Station Bhuna on February 24^th, 2015.  In the said FIR, it was stated by Roshan Lal, author of the FIR that the truck was of Vijay Kumar and not Neki Ram. 

2.      The complainants filed complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short, ‘District Forum’).  The District Forum vide order dated January 24^th, 2017 allowed the complaint directing the Insurance Company to pay 75% of Rs.5,25,974/-, that is, Insured Declared Value (IDV) alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization to the complainants. 

3.      Aggrieved of the order, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.

4.      It is an admitted fact that the truck was sold by Neki Ram to Vijay Kumar on December 14^th, 2012 and the insurance policy was purchased in the name of Neki Ram on July 05^th, 2014.   

5.      Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shyam Bansal, I (2017), CPJ, 410 (NC) held as under:- 

          7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards delivery receipt issued by All India Car Dealer’s Association, which has been signed by complainant as well as purchaser Anil Nagpal on 5.8.2009. As per this receipt Anil Nagpal purchased this vehicle from complainant on 5.8.2009 and Anil Nagpal promised to get vehicle transferred in his name within 15 days of purchase and it was confirmed that vehicle was sold on “as is where is” basis and purchaser had paid full payment to the owner of the vehicle. Thus, it becomes clear that on the date of obtaining insurance as well as on the date of accident complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle as vehicle had already been sold by the complainant to Anil Nagpal on 5.8.2009. Learned State Commission dismissed appeal on the ground that registration certificate was still in the name of the complainant so complainant was owner of the vehicle. This observation is contrary to record and law because once it is established that complainant had sold vehicle to Anil Nagpal on 5.8.2009, merely because Anil Nagpal not got it transferred in his name, complainant does not remain owner of the vehicle. Anil Nagpal committed illegality in obtaining insurance of the vehicle in the name of previous owner Shyam Bansal whereas he should have got vehicle transferred in his name and got insurance policy in his own name. As complainant had neither any insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of accident nor any insurable interest at the time of accident, opposite party has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in IV (2012) CPJ 639 (NC), Dharambir v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., in which revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as vehicle was sold to third party before it was stolen. In the case in hand, vehicle had already been sold by complainant to Anil Nagpal on 5.8.2009 whereas accident took place on 14.2.2011. So complainant had no insurable interest even at the time of obtaining insurance policy and at the time of accident and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is to be allowed.”

6.      For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

UK