UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD vs Ravi Gurung

BOTH the Fora below have decided this case against the petitioner - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. The facts germane to the instant case are these. On 27th September, 2004, an insurance policy was issued for a period of one year in respect of vehicle No. SK 04-6895 belonging to respondent, Shri Ravi Gurung. Although, no plea was raised before the District Forum, yet, before this Commission it was averred that the insurer transferred the ownership of the vehicle to Mr. Mohammad Suleman by executing a document evidencing a gift on 28th July, 2004. The vehicle in question met with an accident on 8th August, 2005. Mr. Hardev Singh gave his final survey report assessing the payable loss at Rs. 2,08,310. Shri Ravi Gurung intimated that the accident took place with his vehicle on 11.8.2005. The complainant approached the petitioner time and again but the Insurance Company denied entertaining this claim on flimsy grounds. He also wrote a number of letters, the last of which was on 1st June, 2009, but those letters did not invoke response from the opposite party. Ultimately, legal notice dated 27th March, 2009 was issued.

DISTRICT Forumvide its order dated 30th April, 2011 awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,10,428 to the complainant because the vehicle in question was insured with the petitioner for a sum of the above said amount. The complainant was awarded interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim i.e. on 16.9.2009 till final payment. The District Forum also awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,000 which was to be paid within two months from announcement of its order, failing which, the said amount would have fetched interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of the order pronounced by the District Forum. Aggrieved by this order, the appeal was filed before the State Commission. The State Commission upheld the view taken by the learned District Forum. However, the cost was reduced to Rs. 20,000 instead of Rs. 50,000. The rest of the findings were not disturbed.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He half-heartedly argued that the complaint filed by the complainant was barred by time. The complaint was filed on 16th September, 2009. The intimation of accident was given to the petitioner on 11.8.2005. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that this case is clearly barred by time as the complaint was not filed within a period of two years.

THE learned District Forum has correctly referred to an authority reported in Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd., IV (2007) CPJ 329 (NC)=2008 (1) CPR 288 (NC), where it was held that it was not in dispute that the claim had been repudiated through the letter dated 27th December, 1999 by the opposite party, Insurance Company, after the filing of the complaint. Consequently, limit of two years, therefore, would stand running from the date of repudiation of claim and as such the complaint filed in that case was found to be within limitation. We, therefore, are unable to cotton on the views propounded by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Although, intimation was given to the petitioner on 11th August, 2005 and the petitioner had deputed a surveyor of valuation of the damages, yet, there was no further response from the petitioners. The petitioners did not reply to the said intimation. They did not state whether it was going to repudiate the claim of the complainant or they were going to accept it. The stand taken by the complainant is that he approached the petitioners time and again but his claim remained undecided. He also wrote several letters, last being dated 1st June, 2007 but the petitioner did not think it proper to respond. The matter was kept in abeyance for the reasons best known to the petitioners. The petitioners did not give response to the notice dated 27th March, 2009, which was issued to the petitioners and ultimately the petition was filed on 16th September, 2009, after the petitioners had repudiated his claim in response to the legal notice on the ground that respondent/complainant had no insurable interest in the said matter of the insurance at the time of accident on 8th August, 2005.

THE second contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the complainant did not have insurable interest in the subject matter of insurance at the time of accident i.e. on 8.8.2005 as the questioned vehicle had been gifted by him to one Mohammad Suleman by way of gift agreement dated 28th April, 2004.

THIS point was not raised before the State Commission. However, we have perused the judgment of the District Forum. It has discussed this question in detail. That judgment clearly goes to reveal in para No. 11, that the complainant who appeared as, PW-1, before the District Forum in affidavit evidence admitted that though gift deed documents were executed by him in favour of Mohammed Suleman yet those documents never came into force and he never handed over the vehicle to Mohammed Suleman at any point of time. Mohammed Suleman, who was examined as PW-2, supported the version in tandem. He clearly and unequivocally deposed that a gift deed was executed in his favour but the said gift deed did not become operative as he was not able to pay money to the complainant. The gift deed itself has got exiguous value. This gift deed was written on a stamp paper. There is no evidence on record that this vehicle was got transferred in the name of Mohammed Suleman in accordance with law. Above all, the respondent has failed to rebut the above said evidence produced by the complainant. Moreover, the cat is out of the bag when Mohammed Suleman stated that he could not get the possession of the vehicle as he could not make the payment of the vehicle to Ravi Gurung. It appears that this agreement was just an eye-wash. As a matter of fact, attempt was made to sell the vehicle to Mohammed Suleman. It is also pertinent to mention here that the money could not be paid by Mohammed Suleman to the complainant and that is why he could not possess the vehicle. He never became the owner of the vehicle. Insurable interest remains with the complainant. We, therefore, find no force in this argument. The last submission made by the Counsel for the petitioner is that as per the surveyor report the value of the vehicle at the time of accident was Rs. 2,08,310. The learned State Commission rightly held that "seeking return of the salvaged vehicle, we find that it was neither raised before the District Forum, East nor do we find it as one of the specific terms of the insurance policy. We, therefore, have no hesitation in rejecting it outright ".

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner could not invite our attention towards the written statement where this plea might have been taken by the petitioner. We see no merit in the revision petition and, therefore, the same is dismissed in limine. Revision Petition dismissed.