SUKHPAL SINGH vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

THIS is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ''Act'') against judgment and order dated 17.7.1993 passed by District Consumer Forum, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 140 of 1991 dismissing the complaint.

THE facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of Ambassador Car No. UMT 3260 which was reportedly stolen on 14.3.1989 from Mohan Puri, Shivaji Road, Meerut. An FIR was lodged with Police Station, Civil Lines, Meerut on 15.3.1989 as Crime No. 92. THE vehicle in question was insured by the complainant with United India Insurance Company Ltd. having Policy No. 81703/24/1/00344/88. THE Surveyor appointed by the opposite party had estimated the cost of the vehicle as Rs. 65,000/- whereas actually it was Rs. 70,000/- because the complainant had entrusted a brand new diesel engine in the vehicle which was costing Rs. 25,000/-. THE complainant met the opposite party regarding his claim, but was informed that the matter has been referred to their Head Office and the cost of the vehicle has been reduced to Rs. 43,500/-. THE complainant was not satisfied with this act and filed an objection on 7.8.1990. THE complainant also requested for re-consideration of his claim, but the opposite party vide its letter dated 21.3.1991 repudiated the claim. THE complainant has asserted in the complaint that his claim has not been disposed of in a bona fide manner by the opposite party. The opposite party filed written statement and had challenged the jurisdiction of the Forum regarding hearing of the case. The insurance of the vehicle, lodging of the claim, etc. was accepted by the opposite party, but it was stated that on investigation, the company found that the vehicle was in possessing of one Raj Singh Yadav and the vehicle was financed by M/s. Pragati Financiers. M/s. Pragati Financiers have also confirmed that the complainant''s account was closed on 6.3.1989. Therefore, the complainant did not have any insurable interest at the time of loss of the said vehicle. On these grounds the complainant''s claim was repudiated.

After hearing the parties and submissions made by the parties'' Counsel the complaint was dismissed.

AGGRIEVED the complainant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order. We have heard Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. V.P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent and have perused the record very carefully.

THE impugned order was criticised by Mr. Gupta on the ground that in spite of the fact that the complainant/appellant was the owner of the car and the same was subject matter of theft and he had an insurable interest and he has not transferred the vehicle to anyone, the opposite party was under an obligation to indemnify the loss which was apparently insured with the opposite party. Mr. Sharma on the other hand stressed that the impugned judgment was just and proper and stated that the appellant had no insurable interest at the time of theft and no economic liability can be fastened on the opposite party. The point to be decided is whether the complainant had any insurable interest at the time the theft took place or not. Admittedly Ambassador Car No. UMT 3260 was insured for Rs. 65,000/- comprehensively for a period between 8.8.1988 and 7.8.1989. This fact has not been denied by the answering respondent. The said vehicle was stolen on the night of 14.3.1989 and this fact is admitted. Even the factum of submission of final report before the competent Court has also been admitted. The vehicle in question was registered and the permit was issued in favour of the appellant for a period 28.7.1988 to 27.7.1991. The registration certificate and the token number which was issued by the R.T.O. Office, Meerut had been deposited by the complainant/appellant with R.T.O. Office, Meerut. Even the certificate of the R.T.O. Office, Meerut which was on the basis of the letter dated 3.1.1991 make it amply clear that the ownership was lying in the name of the complainant at the time of the theft. The vehicle was financed by M/s. Pragati Financiers with whom entire deposit has been made and the certificate was issued dated 6.3.1989 making it clear that financier has no lein over the car as entire instalments have been paid. The letter of answering opposite party dated 31.3.1991 makes it clear that on investigating the matter it was found that the vehicle was in possession of Raj Singh Yadav. Even if this document is accepted, the mere possession of the vehicle with Ram Raj Singh Yadav will not take away the right of the owner so long as the legal documents of transfer of ownership are not brought on record and consequently the registration and ownership is not transferred in the office of the R.T.O., Meerut and thus it cannot be concluded that the complainant has ceased to be the owner. Since the theft has taken place during the currency of the insurance of the vehicle, the liability of indemnifying the loss subsists and cannot be rightfully denied by the answering respondent. The finding of the learned District Forum that the complainant has no insurable interest is not worthy of any credence. The findings thus are not sustainable in law. The complaint is liable to be allowed for a sum of Rs. 65,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of complaint till the date of payment. ORDER The appeal is allowed. Judgment and order of the learned District Forum are set aside. The respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 65,000/- along with 6% per annum interest from the date of complaint till the date of payment. If the entire amount is not paid within three months from the date of this order, the rate of interest will be 9%. No order as to the costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal allowed.