GURMIT SINGH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the complainant Gurmit Singh whose complaint was dismissed by District Forum, Ludhiana vide order dated July 1,1996.

(2.) Gurmit Singh filed complaint before the District Forum claiming compensation on account of loss suffered as the Car No. PB 1 G 0092 was stolen on May, 4,1993, which was insured with the respondent. National Insurance Company Ltd. during the period February 4, 1993 to February 3, 1994. Gurmit Singh purchased the vehicle aforesaid from Mandeep Chopra. Actual date of sale as such is not available on the record but it was after February 4, 1993 as affidavit of Mandeep Chopra filed indicated that on February 11,1993 i. e. date of affidavit he had no objection for transfer of the vehicle in the name of Gurmit Singh and that he had received the consideration for the vehicle and had delivered the possession of the vehicle. The Insurance Company contested the complaint inter alia asserting that there was no privity of contract of insurance with Gurmit Singh and me previous owner Mandeep Chopra by transfer of the vehicle has seized to have any interest in the vehicle. It was further stated that Mandeep Chopra had lodged a claim, which was rejected by the Insurance Company. The District Forum after considering the evidence produced by the parties on affidavits and documents held that the complainant was not entitled to any relief. In support of the decision, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in "complete Insulation Pvt. Ltd. V/s. New India Insurance Company Ltd., 1996 1 CPJ 1. It was held that the Insurance Company was not liable to make payment of damage to the vehlicle in the absence of transfer of the insurance policy in view of the transfer of the vehicle.

(3.) Mr. B. J. Singh, Advocate for the complainant appellant has argued that the present complaint should have been treated on behalf of Gurmit Singh as well as on behalf of Mandeep Chopra, as Mandeep Chopra had executed Power of Attorney in favour of Gurmit Singh and this fact was brought on the record while filing replication. This contention cannot be accepted. The complaint as originally filed by Gurmit Singh is for adjudication. By replication certain facts or objections taken by the opposite party could at the most be contradicted. But a new case or a new party could not be deemed to have been impleaded by raising or asserting such facts in the replication. After perusal of the record, we find that the complaint was filed by Gurmit Singh in his individual capacity even-without indicating that he was Attorney of Mandeep Chopra. Therefore, the case set up in the complaint as such only is to be taken into consideration. In appeal of course, Gurmit Singh has described himself as Attorney of Mandeep Chopra as well. That will not improve the case of the complainant.