NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD vs Nathmal Soni

THE complainant/respondent Sh. Nathmal Soni, purchased a Maruti Alto LXI Car on 18.07.2011 and obtained an insurance policy in respect of the aforesaid vehicle from the petitioner company for the period from 18.07.2011 to 17.07.2012. The aforesaid car met with an accident on 18.09.2011, when it was being driven by one Mr. Ashok Kumar, cousin of the complainant. A claim in this regard was lodged by the complainant with the Insurance Company. The claim was repudiated on the ground that the vehicle had been sold by the complainant to Sh. Ashok Kumar on 16.09.2011. Being aggrieved from the repudiation of his claim, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that having sold the vehicle to Sh. Ashok Kumar on 16.09.2011, the complainant was left with no insurable interest of the vehicle on the date it met with an accident.

BEING aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission, by way of an appeal. The appeal was allowed by the State Commission vide its order dated 06.05.2014 and the following directions were given: - "The complainant shall submit within one month before the Insurance company, a fresh claim petition along with the bills and cash memo of the expenses incurred by him in the repairs of his car and the Insurance Company shall thereafter settle and pay to the complainant within two months, the aforesaid amount. If, it is found that the case of the complainant is a case of total loss of the vehicle, then the Insurance Company shall pay to the complainant, the amount deduction of 5% depreciation. The Insurance Company shall also pay to the complainant Rs. 24,909/ - (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Nine Only), the bay and parking charges of the car in the workshop, in addition to the amount of expenses incurred by the complainant in repairs of his car. The complainant shall also get from the Insurance Company a consolidated amount of Rs. 20,000/ - (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) as compensation for mental agony and cost of proceedings."

BEING aggrieved from the order of the State Commission, the Insurance Company is before us, by way of this revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner company has drawn our attention to the affidavit purporting to be sworn by the complainant Sh. Nathmal Soni on 20.12.2011. Vide aforesaid affidavit, the complainant stated that the vehicle in question had been sold by him to Sh. Ashok Kumar on 16.09.2011, who was driving the vehicle at the time it met with an accident. It was also stated in the said affidavit that the loss on account of the accident was caused to Sh. Ashok Kumar and there was no third party damage. The case of the complainant as regards the aforesaid affidavit is that though it bears his signature, it was a blank signed document when it was sent to the Insurance Company, pursuant to the requirement of the Insurance Company conveyed to him on telephone. In other words, according to the complainant he received a telephone call from the Insurance Company, requiring him to submit a blank affidavit, in connection with the processing of his claim and it was at that stage that the aforesaid blank affidavit was submitted by him.

WE find that the stamp paper for the aforesaid affidavit was purchased by the complainant himself on 20.12.2011. The Insurance Company does not, as per its practice and procedure, ask for any blank affidavit to be submitted by the complainant. There could be no occasion for the Insurance Company to ask the complainant to give a signed blank affidavit in connection with the processing of his claim. The claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on 15.05.2012. Had the complainant not sold the vehicle in question, he would have immediately on receipt of the repudiation letter written to the Insurance Company disputing the averment to this effect made in the repudiation letter and also would have claimed at that very stage, that he suspected that they had prepared some forged affidavit on a blank document submitted by him. That, however, had not been done, which is clear indication that the affidavit of the complainant in question was actually sworn by him.

THE learned counsel for the complainant submits that alongwith the complaint at the time of filing it, they had submitted an affidavit of Sh. Ashok Kumar, stating therein that the vehicle in question was never purchased by him. However, considering the affidavit submitted to the Insurance Company and also the fact that immediately on receipt of the repudiation letter, the complainant did not claim that the vehicle was not sold by him to Sh. Ashok Kumar and he did not express suspicion about forging of the affidavit on the blank document submitted by him, we are not inclined to accept the affidavit of Sh. Ashok Kumar. In fact, we are not at all inclined to believe that the Insurance Company would have asked the complainant to submit a blank affidavit nor are we ready to accept that the complainant would be so naive that he would submit a blank affidavit to the Insurance Company, without even a forwarding letter stating therein that the said blank affidavit was being submitted by him pursuant to the telephonic instructions received from the Insurance Company.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the view that the Insurance Company was justified in rejecting the claim submitted by the complainant, on the ground that he was left with no insurable interest left in the vehicle, on the date it met with an accident. We are satisfied that the complainant had sold the vehicle in question to Sh. Ashok Kumar on 16.09.2011 and that is why the vehicle was being driven by Sh. Ashok Kumar at the time it met with an accident.

THE revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside. We, however, make it clear that dismissal of the complaint shall not come in the way of the transferee of the vehicle Sh. Ashok Kumar, availing such remedy against the Insurance Company as may be available to him in law.