Insurable interest can be established through possession and payment of premiums, and the possessor of the insured property can have insurable interest.

Mr. Justice P.K. Shamsuddin, President— The Opposite Party in O.P. 240/90 on the file of the District Forum, Kollam is appellant.

2. On 16.8.1988 a T.V. set was purchased in the name of one Kamaladharan the brother of the complainant. On 24.10.89 the Complainant insured T.V. set with the Opposite Party for one year from 24.10.89. The brother of the complainant Kamaladharan was also residing with the complainant. On 4.12.89 the T.V. fell down and the picture tube was broken. The damage was reported to the Opposite Party and a duly filled up claim form was given. A Surveyor was deputed and he inspected the set. The Opposite Party asked the complainant to replace the picture tube and return the old one. Accordingly on 21.2.90 the complainant purchased a picture tube at a price of Rs. 4837/- and that picture tube was fitted on 2.3.90 on payment of fitting charge of Rs. 150/-. He filed bills with the insured and returned the old picture tube. But however the Opposite Party rejected the claim stating that the complainant had no insurable interest in the T.V. set.

3. In the version filed by the Opposite Party, it was stated that the complainant was not the owner of the T.V. set and it was for this reason the claim was rejected. According to the Opposite Party, Kamaladharan was the owner of the T.V. set. The District Forum found that the complainant paid consideration and he had insurable interest at the time when the insurance was made. In that view the District Forum passed an order directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 4887/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 2.3.90 till the date of payment to the complainant.

4. In this appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that in view of Section 3 of the Benami Transactions (Abolition) Act no plea of Benami can be raised in any proceedings. Learned Counsel contended that therefore it cannot be argued that the complainant had insurable interest at the time when insurance was made and therefore the order passed by the District Forum directing the Insurance Company to pay the amount is unsustainable.

5. The only question to be considered is whether at the time when the insurance was taken, the complainant was its owner. It was not disputed that the T.V. set was at the residence of the complainant. The circumstance that the complainant’s brother who is residing with the complainant got the bill in his name cannot be the criterion to decide whether the complainant is the owner. It was the set in question that was insured and the premium was paid by the complainant. His ownership has not been questioned earlier. The T.V. set was also in the possession of the complainant. There is nothing to show that Muraleedharan had subsisting ownership to the set. In the circumstances we are of the view that the District Forum was right in holding that the complainant is a consumer and he has insurable interest during the relevant period and that he is entitled to be compensated The T.V. set is a movable property and the ownership can be transferred by mere delivery of position. In these circumstances we do not find any justification to uphold the contention that he complainant has not insurable interest. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. However we direct the parties to bear their respective costs.

Appeal dismissed.