UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. NSADEEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record. By means of the judgment in appeal the claim of the respondent for Rs. 1,19,191 along with 9% interest has been granted.

(2.) THE respondent/complainant's Tata Sumo DL -4CF -8339 met with an accident on 29.11.2003 and the vehicle suffered serious damages. The complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 1,45,000 for which the vehicle was insured and also claimed Rs. 50,000 as compensation. The United India Insurance Company Limited denied the complainant's case of the accident having taken place on 29.11.2003 instead as pleaded by it the accident took place on 22/23.11.2003. The complainant, as pleaded further, fraudulently got the vehicle transferred to his name on 24.11. 2003 i.e. after the date of accident. It was also stated that the complainant though purchased the vehicle for Rs.95,000 on 15.10.2003, yet got it insured for a higher amount of Rs. 1,45,000 in the name of M/s. Gupta Pigments and Chemicals Private Limited, erstwhile owner of the vehicle. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has explained that when the respondent went to get the registration transferred in his name, he was asked by the R.T.O. officials to get it insured first and it was in the sequence of that event that he first got it insured for a period of duration from 31.10.2003 to 30.10.2004 in the name of the former owner M/s. Gupta Pigments and Chemicals Private Limited. Since the registration had not been transferred in the respondent's name, the Insurance Company preferred to get it insured in the name of the former owner.

(3.) THE United India Insurance Company Limited has, however, submitted that the respondent played fraud throughout in order to hoodwink the Insurance Company. In the circumstances brought forth before us a natural question arises, why the respondent/complainant preferred to get the vehicle insured in his predecessor's name when he had already purchased it on 15.10.2003. The insurance of the vehicle for the preceding year had come to an end in May, 2003, therefore, the respondent's explanation that he hurriedly got it insured in his predecessor's name so as to keep the insurance continuing is fallacious. The explanation does not appear to be plausible for the simple reason that there was no question of continuance of the insurance as the preceding year's insurance had come to an end in May, 2003 itself. In other words it may be observed that the vehicle was not under any insurance cover on the date on which the complainant had purchased it from M/s. Gupta Pigments and Chemicals Private Limited. Since he purchased it for a sum of Rs.95,000 and he was possessed of the sale letter in his favour, he should have persuaded the Insurance Company to obtain insurance policy in his own name instead of his former owner's name. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the complainant was not sailing with bona flde intent as in spite of the fact that he purchased the vehicle for Rs. 95,000, he got it insured for Rs. 1,45,000. The contention of the respondent that the vehicle could be registered only in the name of his predecessor is neither tenable; nor acceptable as with the sale letter in his hand every Insurance Company would prefer to provide the insurance policy to the owner of the vehicle and the registration certificate should have also been obtained in his name. In the circumstances, the theory of fraud as propounded by the Insurance Company cannot be ruled out.