UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 22.04.2008, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 935 of 2003, "United India Insurance Company Vs. Bhupinder Singh", vide which while dismissing appeal, the order dated 16.06.2003, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala in consumer complaint No. 570 dated 28.11.2002, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Bhupinder Singh, the present respondent filed the consumer complaint in question on 28.11.2002, stating that he was the owner of the Tanker Ashok Leyland vehicle No. PB-11-G-2035, model 1995. The previous owner of the vehicle Kamalpreet Singh got it insured with the petitioner insurance company for Rs.5,30,000/- for the period 17.12.2000 to 16.12.2001. The said vehicle was stolen on 10.09.2001 for which FIR No. 770 dated 01.12.2001 was lodged with the police station Kotwali, Patiala. Intimation about the theft of the vehicle was given to the insurance company on 07.12.2001. The police had filed untraced report for the said vehicle. The complainant submitted all the requisite documents to the insurance company and also met their officials personally regarding the settlement of the claim, but the same was not settled. The complainant demanded a sum of Rs.5.00 lacs through the consumer complaint in question. In their reply before the District Forum, the petitioner stated that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant did not have any insurable interest in the matter. The insurance policy was in the name of Kamalpreet Singh. Moreover, the truck was taken away by employees of the complainant, which amounts to misappropriation and not theft. The insurance company also denied that the requisite documents had been provided to them. The investigator appointed by the insurance company also stated that the complainant had no insurable interest in the matter.

(3.) The District Forum vide their order dated 16.06.2003, allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3.20 lacs along with 9% interest per annum as assessed by the surveyor. The District Forum observed that the driver had taken away the vehicle with the intention to commit theft. In appeal filed before the State Commission, the order of the District Forum was upheld, saying that the complainant was an Attorney of the original owner Kamalpreet Singh and he was liable to get the benefit from the insurance company. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.