IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance policy cannot be taken by previous owner of vehicle.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugnedORDER dated 29.08.2012, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘the State Commission’) in FA No. 786/2012, “Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Singh,” vide which while allowing the appeal, theORDER dated 02.05.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon, in Consumer Complaint no. 322/2010, allowing the said complaint, was set aside.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant Ram Singh had a scorpio vehicle, bearing registration no. HR27A 8047, which was insured with the OP Insurance Company vide policy No. 1310792311001902 for the period 29.05.2009 to 28.05.2010 with the insured amount of Rs. 6,19,200/-. The complainant alleged that in the night of 14.07.2009, the said vehicle was stolen by unknown persons. An FIR was lodged with the Police Station on 14.07.2009 and a claim was lodged with the insurance company for a sum of Rs. 6,19,200/-. The respondent insurance company appointed a surveyor to enquire into the incident and based on that, the claim was repudiated by the insurance company vide its letter dated 21.12.2009, saying that the said vehicle had been sold to one Satish Chand, even before taking the policy and since the purchaser had no insurable interest, the claim was not payable. The Police also filed report under section 173 Cr.P.C. dated 16.10.2009, saying that the case was ‘untraced’. The complaint was lodged with the police by the purchaser Satish Chand in which he had stated that he purchased the said vehicle from Ram Singh on 07.02.2008, but the vehicle was stolen before transfer in his name. The vehicle was stolen from the custody of the purchaser. The consumer complaint was then filed by the original owner Ram Singh, seeking refund of Rs. 6,19,200/- with interest @24% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint and a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment.

3. The respondent/OP in their reply before the District Forum stated that the complainant had taken the policy in question from them but he had sold the vehicle to Satish Chand on 07.02.2008 and also submitted Form 29 and Form 30 as evidence of having sold the vehicle. Since the purchaser Satish Chand had no insurable interest in the matter at the time of theft, the claim could not be paid. The District Forum after taking into account the evidence of the parties allowed the complaint andORDERed the OP to pay 75% of the assured amount on non-standard basis, alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses. The District Forum placed reliance on the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case National Insurance Company v. Nitin Khandelwal, 2008 ACJ 2035. However, an appeal made against thisORDER was allowed by the State Commission vide impugnedORDER and it was held that since the vehicle was sold prior to the date of theft and no intimation had been given to the Insurance Company with respect to sale–purchase of the vehicle in question, the complainant was not entitled for any compensation, as there was no insurable interest between the parties with respect to the vehicle in question. It is against thisORDER that the present petition has come up.

4. At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of theft, the vehicle was in the name of the petitioner which was insured with the respondent Insurance Company and hence, the said claim should be allowed by the Insurance Company. He has drawn our attention to anORDER passed by this Commission in Banowarilal Agrawalla v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. [IV (2005) CPJ 110 (NC)], saying that under section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Policy should be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the purchaser. He also stated that Regulation GR-10 was in place at the relevant time and Regul