Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/11/1476

M/S SHREEMAL CONSTN. - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHOLA MANDALAM GIC - Opp.Party(s)

SH. ANURAG KHASKALAM

04 May 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1476 OF 2011

(Arising out of order dated 13.09.2011 passed in C.C.No.64/2010 by District Commission Jabalpur)

 

1. M/S SHRIMAT CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.

    THROUGH DIRECTOR MR.ANCHITA DEV

    S/O SHRI ANIL KUMAR DEV

    R/O 45 A GANGANAGAR COLONY, GARHA

    JABALPUR (M.P.)

 

2. CHANDRA MOHAN,

    S/O SHRI MANMOHAN DAS,

    R/O RAJAGOKUL PALACE, HANUMANTAAL,

    JABALPUR (M.P.)                                                                                                               ….       APPELLANTS.

 

 

Versus

 

 

1. CHOLAMANDLAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

    DARREY HOUSE, SECOND FLOOR, NSC ROAD,

    CHENNAI-600 001

 

2. BRANCH MANAGER, MAHOBA ROAD,

    TORIYA MOHALLA, CHATARPUR,

    CHOLAMANDLAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

    NEAR GULZAAR HOTEL, NAGPUR ROAD,

    JABALPUR (M.P.)

 

3. INDUSIND BANK,

    THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER,

    COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILE BUILDING,

    NEAR SHASTRI BRIDGE, NAPIER TOWN,

    JABALPUR (M.P.)                                                                                                                ….    RESPONDENTS.

  

                     

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                 :    PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                               :    MEMBER

        

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

 

Shri Anurag Khaskalam, learned counsel for appellant.

Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent 1 & 2.

Ms. Chitra Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

 

 

 

 

 

-2-

                                                     O R D E R

                                       (Passed On 04.05.2022)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. (Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   This appeal is by the complainants/appellants, against the order dated 13.09.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jabalpur (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.64/2010, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant has been dismissed.

2.                Brieftly put, the facts of the case as narrated by the complainants/appellants are that the complainant no.1/appellantno.1 is a private limited company.  Complainant no.2/appellant no.2 is holder of 50% shares of the complainant no.1/appellant no.1 company.  The complainant no.1/appellant no.1 had purchased LOGAN DLS bearing registration number MP-20 CA-4842 after availing loan from opposite party no.3/respondent no.3 bank, and the vehicle was insured with the opposite party no.1 and 2/respondent no.1 and 2 for an Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.5,92,298/-.  The subject vehicle was transferred by the appellant no.1 to appellant no.2 on 10.07.2009 of which intimation was given to the respondent no.1 & 2-insurance company on 15.07.2009.  The subject vehicle met with an accident on 04.09.2009, regarding which intimation was given to the respondent no.1 & 2-insurance company and a claim was lodged with the respondent-insurance company.  The claim filed by the appellant was repudiated by the respondent insurance company and therefore, the appellant filed a complaint before the District Commission.

 

-3-

3.                The opposite party no.1 & 2 insurance company did not file any reply to the complaint before the District Commission. The opposite party no.3/respondent no.3-bank stated that they had only financed the subject vehicle and thus have no liability in the instant matter.

4.                The District Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant no.1/appellant no.1 was not the owner of the subject vehicle, at the time of the accident.  The complainant no.1/appellant no.1 had sold the vehicle to complainant no.2/appellant no.2 but the claim was filed with the insurance company by them.  It is held that opposite parties have not been deficient in service in not allowing the claim. Hence this appeal.

5.                We have heard learned counsels for the parties. Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for complainants/appellants argued that the complainant no.2/appellant no.2 is the employee of the appellant no.1 and the subject vehicle was previously owned by the appellant no.1.  The appellant no.2 had out of mistake filed the claim before the insurance company. The District Commission has been erroneous in dismissing the complaint.  He argued that the complainant is entitled for the claim amount.  Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the National Commission in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Om Prakash Gupta & Anr I (2009) CPJ 183 (NC) to support his submission.

7.                Learned counsel for respondent no.1 & 2-insurance company admitted that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 04.09.2009, regarding which a claim was filed with the opposite party no.1 & 2/respondent no.1 & 2-insurance company.  It was found that the appellant no.1 has sold the

-4-

vehicle to appellant no.2 before 04.09.2009 i.e. on 10.07.2009.  At the time of accident, the vehicle was in possession of appellant no.2.  Since the appellant no.1 had sold the vehicle, and was no longer the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident, the agreement of insurance was null and void. The insurance policy was not transferred in the name of the new owner, i.e. appellant no.2 i.e. Mr. Chandramohan Das and therefore he too was not entitled for any claim amount. In the instant matter the opposite party/respondent has not been deficient in service in denying the claim amount. Learned counsel relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court M/S Complete Insulations (P) Ltd Vs New India Assurance Company Limited (1999) NCJ (SC) 325 and the decisions of the National Commission in Manish Saini & Ors Vs National Insurance Company Limited IV (2018) CPJ 356, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Reeta I (2013) CPJ 24B (NC) (CN), United India Insurance Co.Ltd.Vs V.C.Deendayal & Anr III (2009) CPJ 260 (NC), New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Nayan Kumar II (2016) CPJ 685 (NC), Mohammad Ishakbhai Timbiwala Vs Tata AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd. II (2016) CPJ 592 (NC) and decision of Uttarakhand State Commission in Tushar Mehta Vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. II (2019) CPJ 117 (Utta) and decision of this Commission in First Appeal No. 595/2007 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Avinash Shivhare decided on 04.10.2016 to support his submissions.

8.                It is apparent from the evidence adduced before us that the present owner of the vehicle is appellant no.2 i.e. Mr.Chandramohan Das and the vehicle was in his possession at the time of accident i.e. on 04.09.2009.  The

-5-

insurance policy bears the name of appellant no.1 as the insured.  But since the appellant no.1 ceased to be the owner of the vehicle in question, however, he

might be the insured, he is not entitled for any claim amount since he has no insurable interest left in the matter.  We support our view by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court M/S Complete Insulations (P) Ltd Vs New India Assurance Company Limited (1999) NCJ (SC) 325 and the decision of the National Commission rendered in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Divya Prasad I (2011) CPJ 22 (NC). The facts of the judgment referred by counsel for appellants are different from the instant case and hence have no applicability in this matter.

9.                In view of the above, considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, we find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and uphold the same. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.           

 

                (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                              (A. K. TIWARI)

                  PRESIDING MEMBER                                  MEMBER