(1.) The present Special Civil Application impugns the judgment and order dtd. 3/7/2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.1352 of 2022.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, Shri Hari Krishna Maheshwari owner of Tata Truck bearing registration No.UP.66.E.9989 had taken insurance from the petitioner insurance company vide policy No.30020031116300005537 from 17/12/2011 to 16/12/2012. The said vehicle came to be sold by the insured to the respondent herein about 5 months prior to the date of alleged theft of the vehicle. That on 20/12/2011, the said vehicle was stolen. Accordingly, a claim came to be lodged by the respondent who was the new owner/Power of Attorney holder of the vehicle. That on 7/8/2013, the claim of the respondent came to be repudiated by the petitioner insurance company.
(3.) Ms. Krupali N. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the findings arrived at by the District Commission ought to have been upheld by the State Commission as well as the National Commission. She submits that the respondent was not the actual owner of the vehicle and the policy was also taken in the name of the earlier owner and that he was only a Power of Attorney holder. She submits that the respondent did not inform the insurance company immediately as well as lodged the FIR with the police with delay in respect of the theft of the vehicle. She submits that such a delay is fatal and therefore, the petitioner insurance company had all rights to repudiate the claim as it was in breach of the conditions of the policy. Further, it was submitted that the vehicle was sold to the respondent and the vehicle was in possession of the Power of Attorney holder, however, the vehicle was not transferred in the name of the Power of Attorney holder/purchaser and the insurance policy was continued in the name of the earlier owner itself. She submits that the earlier owner did not have any interest in the vehicle after the sale. She further submits that it was wrongly concluded by the State Commission that the claim of the complainant was genuine and that the District Commission had not adjudicated the said issue as there was a breach of conditions of the policy. She further submits that the National Commission has also erred in holding that the delay in intimation to the insurance company as also purported transfer of the vehicle to the third party by entering in a sale agreement, is not an important factor for the insurer to deny the claim.