(1.) The revision petitioner Shri Dharambir was the Complainant before the District Forum, Karnal. The matter pertains to a car which was stolen on 24.10.2007. The OP/New India Assurance Company had repudiated the claim on the ground that the Complainant had no insurable interest on the date of loss, as he had already sold vehicle to one Shri Dilprit Singh on 24.7.2007. The District Forum examined Shri Dilprit Singh, who stated that he had borrowed the car from the Complainant Dharambir for journey to Chandigarh and had not purchased it from him. The District Forum therefore allowed the complaint and directed the insurance Company to indemnify the Complainant. Appeal of the present respondent/New India Assurance Company was allowed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on reconsideration of the documentary evidence led before the fora below.
(2.) Therefore, the main question is whether the petitioner Dharambir was the owner of the car in question or whether it was Dilprit Singh. The records of the case have been carefully perused by us and the two counsels, Ms. Renu Verma, for the revision petitioner and Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, for the respondent, have been heard. The main ground of challenge to the impugned order of the State Commission is that the State Commission had failed to consider the statements of the Complainant and Dilprit Singh before the District Forum that they had been misguided by the insurance agent. The revision petition also objects to consideration of certain records by the State Commission on the ground that they were not produce before the District Forum.
(3.) However, interestingly one of the grounds of challenge to the impugned order comes very close to admitting that the vehicle had infact been sold to Dilprit Singh but its ownership was not transferred as the whole consideration had not been paid by the buyer, while the liability of the seller to pay the financier was still continuing. The relevant ground (H) read as follows:-