UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY vs BHUPINDER SINGH

THIS revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 22.04.2008, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission '') in First Appeal No. 935 of 2003, ''''United India Insurance Company Vs. Bhupinder Singh '''', vide which while dismissing appeal, the order dated 16.06.2003, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala in consumer complaint No. 570 dated 28.11.2002, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Bhupinder Singh, the present respondent filed the consumer complaint in question on 28.11.2002, stating that he was the owner of the Tanker Ashok Leyland vehicle No. PB -11 -G -2035, model 1995. The previous owner of the vehicle Kamalpreet Singh got it insured with the petitioner insurance company for Rs.5,30,000/ - for the period 17.12.2000 to 16.12.2001. The said vehicle was stolen on 10.09.2001 for which FIR No. 770 dated 01.12.2001 was lodged with the police station Kotwali, Patiala. Intimation about the theft of the vehicle was given to the insurance company on 07.12.2001. The police had filed untraced report for the said vehicle. The complainant submitted all the requisite documents to the insurance company and also met their officials personally regarding the settlement of the claim, but the same was not settled. The complainant demanded a sum of Rs.5.00 lacs through the consumer complaint in question. In their reply before the District Forum, the petitioner stated that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant did not have any insurable interest in the matter. The insurance policy was in the name of Kamalpreet Singh. Moreover, the truck was taken away by employees of the complainant, which amounts to misappropriation and not theft. The insurance company also denied that the requisite documents had been provided to them. The investigator appointed by the insurance company also stated that the complainant had no insurable interest in the matter. The District Forum vide their order dated 16.06.2003, allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3.20 lacs along with 9% interest per annum as assessed by the surveyor. The District Forum observed that the driver had taken away the vehicle with the intention to commit theft. In appeal filed before the State Commission, the order of the District Forum was upheld, saying that the complainant was an Attorney of the original owner Kamalpreet Singh and he was liable to get the benefit from the insurance company. It is against this er that the present petition has been made.

HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner stated that as per the complaint, the theft took place on 10.09.2001, but FIR was lodged with the police on 01.12.2001 and the intimation was given to the insurance company on 07.12.2001. It was clear therefore, that there was a delay of two months and 21 days in filing the FIR and a delay of two months and 27 days in sending intimation to the insurance company. The claim was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The learned counsel further stated that in fact, the said vehicle had been sold in collusion with the driver of the vehicle and it was not a case of theft at all. The complaint was not maintainable as the insurance policy did not stand in the name of the complainant and even the registration certificate was not in the name of the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent stated that the present complaint had been filed by Bhupinder Singhrespondent as Power of Attorney holder of the original owner -Kamalpreet Singh. In a number of decisions already pronounced by the National Commission, it had been held that an attorney was competent to file the complaint. The learned counsel referred to the order of the National Commission in BanowarilalAgrawalla Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., as reported in IV (2005) CPJ 110 (NC) and order of the National Commission in RP/2721 of 2007, ''''Consumer Education & Research Society & Anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., pronounced on 13.12.2007. A copy of the special Power of Attorney from Kamalpreet Singh in favour of Bhupinder Singh had been placed on record. The complainant, Bhupinder Singh was therefore, the purchaser as well as the special Power of Attorney holder and hence, competent to file the case. The vehicle was purchased by Bhupidner Singh on 02.5.2002 and the said power of attorney was executed on 08.05.2002. The learned counsel further explained that since the theft took place in 2001, the case was governed by the General Regulations No.10, according to which, there was an automatic transfer of insurance policy along with the transfer of ownership. Regarding the delay in filing the FIR and intimation to the insurance company, the learned counsel stated that since all the documents were taken away with the vehicle, he was not in a position to lodge an FIR or to inform the insurance company immediately.

WE have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. A plain perusal of the consumer complaint in question reveals that the complaint has been filed on 28.11.2002 by Bhupinder Singh in his own name, although, in the heading to the complaint, the description of the complainant has been described as Bhupinder Singh himself, as well as Attorney of the Kamalpreet Singh. It has been clearly stated in the complaint that theft took place on 10.09.2001; whereas the FIR was lodged on 01.12.2001 with the police and intimation to the insurance company was given on 07.12.2001. It is evident from these facts that the intimation to the police was given late by two months and 21 days and intimation to the insurance company was late by two months and 27 days. This is clearly in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, as such intimation is required to be given immediately to the insurance company. We are supported in this contention in the order of the National Commission in the case '''' ''''New India Insurance Company Vs. Trilochan Jane, '''' in F.A. No. 321 of 2005 decided on 09.12.2009. In the said case, a delay of two days in lodging the FIR, and a delay of nine days in giving intimation to the Insurance Company was found fatal to the claim for payment.

IT is also clear from record that the vehicle still stands in the name of the original owner, Kamalpreet Singh. The insurance policy also stands in the name of the original owner. It is clear therefore, that in so far as the complainant is concerned, he does not have any insurable interest in the matter. Although, it has been stated that the claim is being made as power of attorney holder, even then, the complaint itself says that the Bhupinder Singh has filed the complaint in his own capacity as well as in the capacity of power of attorney holder. We have therefore; no reason to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the District Forum and duly upheld by the State Commission that the complainant was liable to get the claim from the insurance company. In fact, the State Commission have not given any reasons for agreeing with the findings given by the District Forum. The learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn our attention to the order of the National Commission in ''''Shri Narayan Singh versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. '''', as reported in IV (2007) CPJ 289 (NC), in which it was held that the benefits under the policy automatically accrue to the new owner on transfer of the vehicle. The learned counsel also has drawn attention to order of the National Commission in ''''National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Subhash Chand Kataria & Anr., as reported in II (2008) CPJ 324 (NC), in which the same principle has been stated. In ''''Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Om Prakash Gupta & Anr. '''', as reported in I(2009) CPJ 183 (NC), the National Commission passed their order based on GR -10 issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee. However, all these orders passed by the National Commission do not help the complainant/respondent at all, because the ownership of the vehicle has not been transferred to the complainant. The question of ''automatic transfer '' of insurance policy arises only if the ownership is transferred, but the said vehicle stands in the name of the original owner only.

IN view of the discussion above, it is held that the District Forum and the State Commission have gravely erred in coming to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to the insurance claim. The present revision petition is therefore, allowed and the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum are set aside. The consumer complaint in question is ordered to be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.