SUKHPAL SINGH Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'act') against judgment and order dated 17.7.1993 passed by District Consumer Forum, Meerut in Complaint Case No.140 of 1991 dismissing the complaint.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of Ambassador Car No. UMT 3260 which was reportedly stolen on 14.3.1989 from Mohan Puri, Shivaji Road, Meerut. An FIR was lodged with Police Station, Civil Lines, Meerut on 15.3.1989 as Crime No.92. The vehicle in question was insured by the complainant with United India Insurance Company Ltd. having Policy No.81703/24/1/00344/88. The Surveyor appointed by the opposite party had estimated the cost of the vehicle as Rs.65,000/- whereas actually it was Rs.70,000/- because the complainant had entrusted a brand new diesel engine in the vehicle which was costing Rs.25,000/-. The complainant met the opposite party regarding his claim, but was informed that the matter has been referred to their Head Office and the cost of the vehicle has been reduced to Rs.43,500/-. The complainant was not satisfied with this act and filed an objection on 7.8.1990. The complainant also requested for re-consideration of his claim, but the opposite party vide its letter dated 21.3.1991 repudiated the claim. The complainant has asserted in the complaint that his claim has not been disposed of in a bona fide manner by the opposite party.

(3.) The opposite party filed written statement and had challenged the jurisdiction of the Forum regarding hearing of the case. The insurance of the vehicle, lodging of the claim, etc. was accepted by the opposite party, but it was stated that on investigation, the company found that the vehicle was in possessing of one Raj Singh Yadav and the vehicle was financed by M/s. Pragati Financiers. M/s. Pragati Financiers have also confirmed that the complainant's account was closed on 6.3.1989. Therefore, the complainant did not have any insurable interest at the time of loss of the said vehicle. On these grounds the complainant's claim was repudiated.