RAJ KUMAR Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Raj Kumar has filed this complaint against United India Insurance Company Limited claiming Rs.4,35,000/- with 18% interest w. e. f. December 4, 1996 till payment alongwith Rs.2,000/- cost of litigation and Rs.50,000/- compensation for mental tension and delay in settlement of the claim.

(2.) Raj Kumar had purchased Maruti Esteemed Car No. DL-4 CD 3590 on February 5, 1995 from Daya Singh, resident of Village Basrampur, District Jalandhar on payment of Rs.4,40,000/-. He obtained an agreement as well as affidavit from Daya Singh in this respect alongwith the car and Registration Book. On October 30, 1996, he obtained Insurance Policy for the aforesaid car from the opposite party United India Insurance Company for a period of one year from October 30, 1996 on payment of Rs.13,836/- premium in cash through Mr. Wadial, Development Officer of the Insurance Company and obtained Cover Note No.600267. The value of the car for which the Insurance Policy was taken was stated to Rs.4,25,000/- + Rs.10,000/- for the Sterio, in all Rs.4,35,000/-. The Cover Note was issued in the name of Daya Singh because in the Registration Book, change of ownership had not taken place. On December 4, 1996, the aforesaid Car was stolen. The Insurance Company was informed. Report with Police Station was also lodged. The car was not traceable, hence claim was lodged with the Insurance Company. Annexure B is the copy of the F. I. R. and Annexure C is the intimation given to the Insurance Company. Sh. R. S. Ahluwalia, Investigator was appointed by the Insurance Company who submitted his report. The claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company vide letter dated May 26, 1998 addressed to Daya Singh that after transfer of the car, he was left with no insurable interest. Thus, Raj Kumar has come up claiming the amount from the Insurance Company. The claim was contested by the Insurance Company by submitting a written version. Preliminary objections were taken that the complaint was not maintainable. The complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint. The car was still in the name of Daya Singh and Insurance Cover was also in his name although car stood sold and Raj Kumar had no insurable interest. There was no deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Insurance Company. On merits, for want of knowledge, it was denied that the car had been purchased by the complainant. Issuance of the Insurance Policy in the name of Daya Singh was admitted who was stated to be the registered owner. The claim intimation was given by Daya Singh to the Insurance Company vide Annexure R3. R. S. Ahluwalia's report was admitted to be of June 12, 1997, copy Annexure R-4. The repudiation was bona fide and correct as per facts. There was no privity of contract between the Insurance Company and the complainant. Both the parties produced their evidence on affidavits and documents. The complainant produced the Cover Note as issued by the Insurance Company Annexure A and copy of F. I. R. Annexure B with its English translation, intimation to the Insurance Company (Annexure C) as signed by Raj Kumar for Daya Singh. Copy of the affidavit of Daya Singh (Annexure D) with regard to sale of the car in favour of Raj Kumar after receipt of full payment. Annexure E is the letter from the Insurance Company repudiating the claim that Daya Singh had no insurable interest. Annexure F is the report of the Investigator Mr. R. S. Ahluwalia. On the other hand, the Insurance Company produced Annexure R-1, the repudiation letter already referred to above. Annexure R-2 is the another copy of the same dated May 26, 1998. Annexure R-3 is the letter of Raj Kumar giving intimation of theft though signed for Daya Singh. Ex. R-4 is the report of Sh. R. S. Ahluwalia. The following questions require consideration in the present case : 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer, as defined, entitled to file the complaint having locus standi to do so 2. Whether repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company is arbitrary

(3.) To how much compensation, if any, the complainant is entitled to from the opposite party