NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. MANISH ASHOKRAO KADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Prem Narain. - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner National Insurance Co. Ltd. against the order dated 20.04.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in FA No.A/05/557.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 05.03.2003, Ms. Smt. Uma Devi Dhira Thakur allegedly sold the vehicle Tata Sumo bearing No.MH-32/A-234 to Mr. Manish Ashokrao Kadu i.e. the respondent. On 07.03.2003, the respondent took a private car policy No.27050/31/02/6105360 for the period from 06.03.2003 to 05.03.2004 for the vehicle. On 08.06.2003, an accident took place near Pride Hotel, at Sonegaon, where the said TATA Sumo motor vehicle was dashed by one TATA Indica Car, having registration No.MH-31/AB-5928 from the front. On 209.2003, the vehicle was registered in the name of the respondent. Thereafter a claim was made with the petitioner On 15.10.2003, the respondent sent a legal notice to the petitioner for expenses incurred by him in repair of the damaged vehicle. The petitioner had rejected/repudiated the claim of the respondent as he did not have insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of accident. In the year 2004, the respondent filed a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the petitioner before the District Forum. On 002005, the District Forum dismissed the Complaint of the respondent and held that at the time of accident i.e. 08.03.2003 the respondent was not the registered owner of the vehicle and hence does not have the insurable interest in the vehicle. Further, held that the opposite party i.e. the petitioner herein was absolutely justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Respondent then filed an appeal against the order of the District Forum. The State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and set aside the order dated 002005 passed by the District Forum. The State Commission further held that the policy was given to the appellant/respondent by the Insurance Company and giving the policy without registration of the vehicle in the name of the appellant itself was a deficiency in service.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent in person. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of accident, the respondent did not have any insurable interest as his name was not recorded in the registration certificate. The State Commission has wrongly accepted the Insurance claim of the respondent and has directed the petitioner Insurance Company to pay the same. Learned counsel further stated that the total amount spent by the respondent in repairs i.e. Rs. 90,360/- has been allowed by the State Commission without verifying the veracity of the bills of such repairs. The State Commission has accepted that the respondent does not have any insurable interest, even then the expenditure of repairs has been allowed as compensation to the respondent. Learned counsel further mentioned that the insurance is based on mutual trust and in this case the insured was not the registered owner and he misrepresented the facts while obtaining the policy. Thus, no claim of repairs under the present policy can be allowed.