PARVATI DEVI Vs. SUNDERLAL JAIN CHARITABLE HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1986") has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the order dated 8. 8. 2007 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur-I, Jaipur in case No. 235/2005 by which the complaint filed by the complainant-respondent under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 was allowed partly in the manner that the appellant-Insurance Company was directed to pay to the complainant-respondent a sum of Rs. 2,64,000 as insured amount "along with" interest @ 7% p. a. from 29. 1. 2005 till payment was made and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation within one month failing which the complainant-respondent would be entitled to get interest on the above amount @ 12% p. a. from the date of order till payment was made.

(2.) THE necessary facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows: the complainant-respondent had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 before the District Forum, Jaipur-I, Jaipur on 21. 3. 2005 stating inter alia that he has got his vehicle "tata Sumo" bearing No. RJ 14-5-C 7637 insured with the appellant-Insurance Company through policy No. 370203/31/03/6109638 for the period from 11. 3. 2004 to 10. 3. 2005 and the sum insured was to the tune of Rs. 2,64,000. It was further stated in the complaint that the vehicle in question was being used by Shri Mukesh Bihari Ginani with the permission of the complainant-respondent. It was further stated in the complaint that on 8. 8. 2004, when the vehicle in question was in possession of Shri Mukesh Bihari Ginani, it was stolen away by some one and on 9. 8. 2004 in the morning, a report of that incident of theft was lodged by Mukesh Bihari Ginani in the Police Station Nahar Garh Road, Jaipur where FIR No. 130/2004 was registered and after usual investigation, the police submitted FR No. 38/2004 and the same was accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 16, Jaipur City, Jaipur. It was further stated in the complaint that information about the incident of theft of vehicle in question was also given by Mukesh Bihari Ginani to the appellant Insurance Company. Thereafter, for the theft of vehicle in question, a claim was preferred by the complainant-respondent before the appellant-Insurance Company, but that claim was repudiated by the appellant-Insurance Company through letter dated 29. 1. 2005 in the following manner:

(3.) IN this appeal, the main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that since prior to alleged incident of theft on 8. 8. 2004, the complainant-respondent had already sold the vehicle in question to Mukesh Bihari Ginani in the month of March-April, 2004 for a consideration of Rs. 2,75,000 and also transferred its ownership in favour of Mukesh Bihari Ginani, therefore, he had not sustained any loss and, thus, the complainant respondent was not having any insurable interest in the vehicle in question. Hence, claim of complainant-respondent was rightly repudiated by the appellant and the learned District Forum has committed serious error and illegality in decreeing the claim holding that the complainant-respondent was having insurable interest in the vehicle in question.