SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD vs RANBIR SINGH

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 8.7.2014 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 554 of 2014- Shriram General Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs.Ranbir Singh by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District forum allowing complaint was upheld.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent was owner of truck No. HR-63A/7849 and got it insured from OP/petitioner for a period of one year from 25.2.2011 to 24.2.2012. On 4.5.2011, truck was snatched by miscreants and FIR was lodged under Section 392 IPC on 5.5.2011 at Police Station. Information was given to OP. OP repudiated claim by letter dated 8.11.2012. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that as per FIR, owner of vehicle was Sujeet Kumar, but policy was issued in the name of complainant, though, complainant was having no

insurable interest. It was further submitted that FIR was lodged on 5.5.2011 and intimation to Insurance Company was given on 7.5.2011 and no explanation has been given for delay. It was further submitted that there was violation of Condition No. 1 & 5 of the policy and claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.16,00,000/- with 9% p.a. interest from 4.5.2011 till realization of payment and further allowed Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per FIR, vehicle was owned by Sujeet Kumar and as complainant was not having any insurable interest in the vehicle, claim was rightly repudiated, but learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, leaned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as per investigation Sujeet Kumar was nephew of the complainant who was managing truck and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

It is not disputed that vehicle was registered in the name of complainant and he obtained insurance policy. No doubt, in the FIR it has been mentioned by driver Jai Singh that since last 1 "years he is driver of truck of Sujeet Kumar and after snatching truck from him, he intimated on telephone to owner Sujeet Kumar about the incidence. Merely because he has shown Sujeet Kumar as owner of the truck, it cannot be presumed that Sujeet Kumar had purchased truck and was owner of the truck at the time of incidence in the absence of any other corroborative evidence. Investigator, Accurate Investigators & Recovery Agency has opined that truck belongs to Ranbir Singh which was snatched on 5.5.2011. Another investigator, CIA Claims Investigation Agency also observed that owner of vehicle was Ranbir Singh (insured''s nephew was only looking for maintenance of insured vehicle). Thus, it becomes clear that though complainant was registered owner of the vehicle, Sujeet Kumar being nephew of the vehicle was only managing vehicle so informant Jai Singh mentioned in the FIR that he was driving truck of Sujeet and intimated to him about incidence. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no insurable interest of the complainant in the vehicle at the time of incidence.

Perusal of repudiation letter dated 8.11.2012 reveals that Sujeet Kumar had lodged FIR in which he stated that his own vehicle was stolen. This fact is contrary to FIR because FIR was lodged by Jai Singh. Not only this, in next para it has been mentioned as under:

"insured vehicle was purchased by you much before the date of theft" and this letter has been addressed to Ranbir Singh. This observation itself is contrary to record because Ranbir Singh is registered owner of the vehicle, got it insured from OP.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was violation of Condition No. 1 & 5 of the policy. As per Condition No. 1 of policy in case of theft, insured was required to give immediate intimation to the policy which has already been done in the matter as vehicle was snatched on 4.5.2011 and FIR was lodged on 5.5.2011. In such circumstances, no violation of Condition No. 1 can be presumed. I do not find any applicability of Condition No. 5 to the case in hand and thus there was no violation of Condition No. 5 of the policy.

I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.