IMPORTANT00 POINT
Complainant should not conceal material facts from Consumer Forum.

Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member—Revision petition no. 1595 of 2015 has been filed against the judgment dated 10.04.2015 of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (‘the State Commission’) in appeal no. 3097 of 2012.

2. The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner had taken an insurance of his vehicle no. GJ 9 V 5805 from the respondent/ insurance company for Rs.6,85,714/- for the period 18.03.2008 to 17.03.2009. On 28.02.2009 when the aforesaid vehicle was parked at the place of Tansukhbhai Suthar, the said vehicle was stolen on the night for which the petitioner filed a complaint in the police station. The petitioner submitted his claim along with necessary documents before the respondent/ insurance company, but the insurance company vide its letter dated 08.02.2010 rejected the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore, filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Himmatnagar (‘the District Forum’) to get the amount of the aforesaid claim from the insurance company.

3. The respondent/ insurance company in their reply before the District Forum have stated that the petitioner had sold the subject vehicle to a person named Tansukhbhai and as such the petitioner had no interest of insurance in the said vehicle, hence, the insurance company has properly rejected the claim of the petitioner and therefore, the respondent requested to dismiss the complaint of the petitioner.

4. The District Forum, after considering the submissions and evidence of both the parties “partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and ordered the opponent to pay Rs.6,85,714/- to the complainant along with 7.5% interest from the date of the application and Rs.2,500/- for the cost of the application and mental torture”.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondents filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while allowing the appeal observed as under:

“Prime facie generally the person whose name is in the RTO Book can be said to be the owner. But by receiving the price of the vehicle and executing the sale deed of the vehicle when it is handed over to the purchaser and at that time by not producing the writing, the sale does not become cancelled because of the said reasons only. In this circumstance, because of the name of the complainant in the RTO book, it cannot be said that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle.

In this case for the complainant Tansukhbhai has filed his affidavit vide page no. 65. As stated by him therein, the possession of the impugned vehicle was handed over to the complainant around the time of the incident and he accepts the said fact. Further, he states in his affidavit that on 26.09.2008 Tansukhbhai has returned the truck to Bipinbhai (complainant). But as it was not suitable to the complainant on 10.02.2009 the truck was returned to Tansukhbhai. Since 10.02.2009 complainant had returned the truck to Shri Tansukhbhai only for doing the management, but no such fact has been mentioned in the complaint which is given by Tansukhbhai to the police. At this stage it requires to be noted the fact that if Tansukhbhai had returned the truck to Bipinbhai on 26.09.2008, then there was no reason for him to state in the complaint dated 05.03.2009 on page no. 30 that Tansukhbhai has purchased the vehicle from Bipinbhai and possession thereof is with him. In these circumstances it does not seem that by filing the affidavit Tansukhbhai can help further more to the complainant. Moreover, when Shri Tansukhbhai admits during his cross examination the facts given by him in the complaint before the police and therefore, it cannot be said that at the time of incident Bipinbhai, i.e., the complainant was having any interest in the impugned vehicle. In these circumstances, on the basis of the insurance policy the complainant cannot get the claim from the opponent insurance company. In the aforesaid circumst