KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has filed an appeal against the orders dated 18.2.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short œDistrict Forum ).

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that previously the Maruti Car No. PB -10 -D -0930 was registered in the name of appellant No. 2 and on 14.8.2001 the said car was transferred in the name of appellant No.1. Appellant No.1 is the registered owner of the car. A copy of the registration certificate was enclosed with the complainant. The car in question was insured by the appellant with the respondents through their Divisional Office at Patiala for a sum of Rs. 60,000 after making physical verification by their authorized agent/representative for the period from 19.1.2001 to 18.1.2002 and that the respondents received the premium from the appellant against the insurance value of Rs. 60,000. The value of the car was assessed by the authorized representative of the respondents after making personal inspection of the car and the respondents issued the cover note No. 289313 dated 19.1.2001 valid upto 18.1.2002 in favour of the appellant No. 2. A copy of the cover note was enclosed with the complaint. It was further averred that the said insured car of the appellant was stolen on 10.8.2001 when the same was parked outside the house of Kirpal Singh S/o Gurdev Singh r/o Village Malakpur, P.S. Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib and the appellants along with their associates made search but could not trace the car at which they reported the matter to the police on which FIR No. 167 dated 11.8.2001 under Section 379 of the IPC was registered at Police Station, Sirhind. A copy of the FIR was enclosed with the complaint. The appellant without any loss of time approached/reported the matter to the respondents and all the requisite documents were handedover by them to the respondents as desired by them for the insurance claim of the damaged/stolen car in question. Appellants had been visiting/requesting the office of respondent No. 2 to pursue and finalize the insurance claim but the respondents vide their letter No. 6656/154/01: 2002 dated 31.1.2002 repudiated the claim of the appellant. A copy of the letter in this regard was enclosed with the complaint. It was further averred by the appellant at according to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the respondents are liable to make full payment against the insurance claim of the insured vehicle because they had indemnified the insured against the loss/damage of the car in question. On the above averments, the appellant prayed for a direction to be issued to the respondents to make payment of insurance of Rs. 60,000 along with 24% p.a. interest and besides payment of Rs. 50,000 by way of compensation on account of mental agony/injury/loss suffered by the appellant due to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

(3.) RESPONDENTS filed their reply on 4.6.2002 in which contents of para No.1 and 2 were admitted as correct. Contents of para No. 3 were admitted to the extent that FIR No.167 dated 11.8.2001 under Section 379 of the I.P.C. was registered at Police Station, Sirhind, regarding the theft of the car in question. Rest of the averments of this para were denied for want of knowledge. Contents of para No. 4 were admitted to the extent that matter regarding theft of Car was reported to the answering respondent. Contents of para No. 5 were admitted as correct that the claim was repudiated by the answering Insurance Co. A stand was taken that claim was rightly repudiated by the answering Insurance Co. because neither the respondent No.1 nor the appellant No. 2 had the insurable interest on the date of theft. A stand was taken that none of these appellants were the owner of the vehicle in question on the date of theft. Contents of para No. 6 were denied being wrong. A stand was taken that none of the appellant had any insurable interest in the vehicle on the date of theft. A stand was taken that insurance policy in the name of Daljit Singh, the previous owner, was never got transferred. A stand was taken that as per statement given by the appellant No. 1 to the Surveyor of the Company, he had already sold the car to one Suraj Parkash s/o Malkiat Chand on 5.8.2001 and had also given the possession of the car to him. A stand was taken that the car was stolen when the same was in the possession of said Suraj Parkash and he had reported the matter to the police and got registered the FIR. A stand was taken that Suraj Parkash was not the complainant in the present complaint thus, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. A stand was taken that detailed reply had already been given in the earlier paras and that answering Insurance Co. was not liable for any amount to the appellants. Contents of para Nos. 8 and 9 were denied as wrong. Regarding contents of para No.10, a stand was taken that the territorial jurisdiction of this Honble Court was not denied. About para Nos.11 &12 of the complaint, a stand was taken that the same are legal and need no reply. It was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed as the same had been filed without any cause of action and the appellants are not competent to file the same.