Appeal No.207/06

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. V. Bhaira Ram


Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mr.Sikander Punjabi-Member


Shri Rishi Pal Agarwal,counsel for the appellant

None for the respondent




Date of judgement: 24.4.2009


This appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company against the order dated 3.1.06 passed by the District Forum,jalore in complaint no.31/05,by which the complaint of the complainant respondent was allowed against the appellant insurance company in the manner that the appellant insurance company was directed to pay a sum of Rs.21171/- as the amount of compensation for the damage of the jeep and further to pay Rs.2000/- as amount of compensation for mental agony and Rs.2000/- as amount of cost of litigation.


It arises in the following circumstances:


That the complainant respondent had filed a complaint against the appellant insurance company before the District Forum,Jalore on 16.4.05 interalia stating that jeep bearing no.RJ.16 T 1052 was got registered in the name of the complainant respondent and the jeep in question was got insured for the period 9.10.04 to 8.10.05 and the original insured person was Smt.Kamla

2


Devi. It was further stated in the complaint that the said vehicle was sold by Smt.Kamla Devi to the complainant respondent on 13.10.04 and thus in registration papers the name of the complainant respondent was registered in place of Kamla Devi and the said jeep had met with an accident on 15.10.04 and as a result of which the jeep was damaged and in getting the repair of the jeep a sum of Rs.80,000/- were spent and a claim was preferred,but the claim was repudiated by the appellant insurance company through letter dated 17.2.05 on the ground that on the date of accident the insured person was Smt.Kamla Devi and not the complainant respondent,therefore,complainant respondent was not having any insurable interest on that vehicle. Thereafter the present complaint was filed.


A reply was filed by the appellant insurance company on 18.7.05 and it was pleaded that since the vehicle on the date of accident was insured in the name of Kamla Devi,therefore,there was no privity of contract between the complainant respondent and thus the claim was rightly repudiated and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.


The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order dated 3.1.06 had allowed the complaint as stated above,interalia holding that since the vehicle in question had been registered in the name of the complainant respondent,therefore,the complainant respondent had become the registered owner of the vehicle and thus repudiation of the claim on the ground of privity of contract between the appellant was not justified.


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


3


In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company is that since on the date of accident,the vehicle in question was insured in the name of Kamla Devi,therefore,the complainant respondent was not having any insurable interest and thus the findings recorded by the District Forum are erroneous one and be quashed and set aside and appeal be allowed.


On the other hand,the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.


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


Looking to the fact that the vehicle in question was got insured in the name of Kamla Devi for the period 9.10.04 to 8.10.05 for a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- and looking to the fact that on 13.10.04 no doubt,the complainant respondent had become the registered owner of the vehicle as the vehicle was sold by Smt.Kamla Devi to the complainant respondent and looking to the fact that the accident had taken place on 15.10.04 as a result of which the vehicle was damaged and looking to the fact that on 15.10.04 the complainant respondent was not the insured person, but on that date Smt.Kamla Devi was the insured person and since the complaint has been filed by the complainant respondent and not by Smt.Kamla Devi,therefore,it could easily be said that on the date of accident,the complainant respondent was not having any insurable interest as merely from the fact of transfering the vehicle,the complainant respondent does not become the insured person automatically.


For reasons as stated above,the findings recorded by the

4


District Forum are erroneous one and could not be sustained and similarly the repudiation of the claim of the complainant respondent by the appellant insurance company was justified and thus this appeal deserves to be allowed. However,since Smt.Kamla Devi was the insured person,therefore,liberty is given that she could file the claim before the appellant insurance company and time spent before the District Forum as well as before this Commission could be sought to be exempted u/s 14 of the Limitation Act from today.


The result is that this appeal filed by the appellant insurance company is allowed,impugned order dated 3.1.06 passed by the District Forum,Jalore is quashed and set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant respondent stands dismissed. However,since Smt.Kamla Devi was the insured person,therefore,liberty is given that she could file the claim before the appellant insurance company and time spent before the District Forum as well as before this Commission could be sought to be exempted u/s 14 of the Limitation Act from today.




Member President