UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs WASSAN SINGH & ANR.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.12.2014 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 736 of 2012 - Wassan Singh Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-1/respondent No.1 is the registered owner of the car make Tata Indigo bearing registration No.PB-18-P-2083 (in short, "the vehicle"),

which was got insured by him with the opposite party/petitioner. Complainant No 2/Respondent No. 2 is the power of attorney holder of the vehicle. The same was stolen by some unknown person, regarding which FIR No.64 dated 20.7.2011 was got registered under Section 379 of the IPC at PS-Dhariwal, on the statement of complainant. The intimation regarding the theft was given to the opposite party and after the police submitted the final report before the Court, they again approached the opposite party for the settlement of their claim but the same was not allowed and it adopted delaying tactics. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainants filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that vehicle was sold by complainant No.1 to one Manoj Kumar on 13.6.2009, vide written agreement and complainant No.1 ceased to be the owner thereof. As declared by complainant No.2, in his affidavit dated 17.8.2011, he purchased this vehicle on 4.4.2011. Therefore, complainant No.1 was no more the owner of this vehicle after 13.6.2009 and had no right, title or interest therein. The alleged theft took place on 4.7.2011 and FIR was registered after the lapse of 16 days. The intimation was given to OP on 28.7.2011, after the lapse of 25 days; whereas as per the terms and conditions of the Policy, the notice of the theft was required to be given immediately. Thus, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the Policy. The complainants are not coming to the District Forum with clean hands and they concealed the material facts. They are estopped from filing the complaint by their own act and conduct. Complainant No.2 in the FIR stated himself to be owner of the vehicle, which shows the fraudulent connivance of the complainants with each other. Denying any deficiency on its part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Complainants filed appeal before learned State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeal and directed OP to pay Rs.3,80,000/- to complainant no. 1 with 9% p.a. interest 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 inspite of sale of vehicle by complainant no. 1 and having no interest in the insured vehicle and inspite of delay in lodging FIR and intimation to Insurance Co., learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal and complaint; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

Perusal of record and impugned order reveals that by sale agreement dated 13.6.2009, complainant had sold his insured car to Mr. Manoj Kumar for a sum of Rs.4,12,000/-. As per agreement, complainant no. 1 received Rs.1,68,500/- and balance amount was to be paid by Mr. Manoj Kumar to the financer as per installments. It was also mentioned in the agreement that if purchaser fails to pay the balance installments then the sale deed will be cancelled and if complainant no. 1 withdraws from sale deed then he will return double money to the purchaser. Learned State Commission observed that as ownership of car was to be transferred in favour of Mr. Manoj Kumar after clearance of loan amount, otherwise, agreement was to be treated as cancelled, so on the basis of agreement, it cannot be held that vehicle stood transferred in the name of Mr. Manoj Kumar as it is not the case of OP that loan amount was cleared by Mr. Manoj Kumar. Complainant has not placed any evidence on record to show that Mr. Manoj Kumar has not made payment of installments. Complainant has not made any averment regarding this agreement to sell in his complaint. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that complainant no. 1 did not sell insured vehicle to Mr. Manoj Kumar and agreement stood terminated. Learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on judgment of Hon''ble High Court of Kerala in 1991ACJ820 - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. O. Jameela Beevi & Ors. in which it was

held that merely on the basis of agreement to sell vehicle does not stand transferred in the name of purchaser unless conditions in the agreement are fulfilled. Aforesaid judgment has been given in Motor Accident Claim where transfer of policy is not required and insurance company is liable inspite of not getting insurance policy transferred in the name of purchaser whereas, in the case in hand, complainant is claiming compensation for theft of the vehicle.

Perusal of record further reveals that complainant no. 1 sold this vehicle to complainant no. 2 - Surinder Kumar whose affidavit reveals that he purchased aforesaid car from complainant no. 1 on 4.4.2011. It was further mentioned in affidavit that car was stolen from his house on 3-4/7/2011. He himself lodged FIR on 20.7.2011. This affidavit and FIR makes it crystal clear that complainant no. 1 sold his car to complainant no. 2 on 4.4.2011 whereas; vehicle was stolen on 3-4/7/2011, i.e., after three months of sale. Learned State Commission wrongly observed that Complainant no. 2 was holding vehicle as Power of Attorney as affidavit does not depict that complainant no. 2 was holding vehicle as power of attorney of complainant no. 1 whereas, as per affidavit, complainant no. 2 being owner of the vehicle was possessing vehicle from whose residence vehicle was stolen. Thus, it becomes clear that on the date of theft, complainant no. 1 had no insurable interest in the vehicle and learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal and complaint in his favour.

It is not disputed that car was stolen on 3-4/7/2011 whereas FIR was lodged on 20.7.2011 and intimation to insurance company was given on 28.7.2011. There is no explanation for delay in lodging FIR and delay in intimation to insurance company which is clear violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy.

In F.A. No. 321 of 2005 - New India Assurance Co. Ltd . Vs. Trilochan Jane repudiation of claim by Insurance Company was upheld by this Commission as intimation to Insurance Company was given after 9 days of theft, though, FIR was lodged after 2 days of incident.

In the light of aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that learned State Commission has committed error in allowing complaint in favor of complainant no. 1 and impugned order is liable to set aside.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 12.12.2014 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 736 of 2012 - Wassan Singh Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr. is set aside and order of District Forum dated 10.5.2013 passed by Complaint No. 180 of 2012 - Wassan Singh & Anr. Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd. is affirmed and complaint stands dismissed. Parties to bear their costs.