Appeal No.2044/04

D.P.Sharma V. National Insurance Co.Ltd. & anr.



Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member


Shri Gopal Shastri,counsel for the appellant

Shri Paras Jain,Counsel for the respondents




Date of Judge,ment: 8.7.09



BY THE STATE COMMISSION



This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant against the order dated 7.10.04 passed by the District Forum-II,Jaipur in complaint no.383/04,by which the complaint of the complainant appellant was dismissed on ground of insurable interest.


It may be stated here that the complainant appellant had filed a complaint against the respondents insurance company before the District Forum-II,Jaipur on 23.6.04 interalia stating that Vinod Jamar has got his vehicle insured with the respondents insurance company for the period 8.12.02 to 7.12.03 for a sum of Rs.65,000/- and that vehicle later on was purchasd by the complainant appellant from Vinod Jamar and the name of the complainant appellant was transferred in the registration papers on 24.11.03 and the information of that was given by the

2


complainant appellant to the respondents insurance company and the vehicle in question was damaged due to accident that had taken place on 30.11.03, but the claim was repudiated by the respondents insurance company on the ground that on the date of accident,the complainant appellant was not the insured person. Thereafter the present complaint was filed.


A reply was filed by the respondents insurance company on 10.9.04 interalia stating that since the accident had taken place on 30.11.03 and since the name of the complainant appellant in the policy in place of Vinod Jamar as insured person was entered in the policy after accident and since the policy in favour of the complainant appellant was in force for the period 3.12.03 to 7.12.03 and since the accident had taken place prior to that,therefore,he was not having any insurable interest in the vehicle in question and thus claim was not payable.


The District Forum after hearing both the parties, had come to the conclusion that on the date of accident the complainant appellant was not having any insurable interest and complaint was dismissed.


Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant.


In this appeal,two contentions have been raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant:


1.

that since on the date of accident the complainant appellant was the registered owner of the vehicle as his name was entered in the registration papers on 24.11.03 and accident had taken place on 30.11.03,therefore,he would have been deemed to have insurable interest in the vehicle.

3

2.

that in case this Commission comes to the conclusion that the complainant appellant was not having any insurable interest,permission be accorded to file a fresh complaint on behalf of Vinod Jamar,the original insured person atleast that person would have been having insurable interest on the date of accident.


On the other hand,the learned counsel for the respondents insurance company has supported the impugned order.


We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.


So far as the first contention is concerned,since the policy had been made effective in favour of the complainant appellant wef 3.12.03 and accident had taken place prior to that,therefore,it is clear that he was having no insurable interest and the complaint was rightly dismissed.


So far as the second point is concerned,it may be stated here that the prayer appears to be genuine one and permission could be granted to file a complaint by Vinod Jamar.


For reasons as stated above,this appeal deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. However, if the original insured person wants to file a complaint against the respondents insurance company,permission is accorded on the condition that the complaint should be filed within two months from today.




Member President