IMPORTANT POINT
Son-in-law can drive vehicle belonging to his father-in-law and this factor should not give a ground to Insurance Company to repudiate claim by any means.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 15.07.2011, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench Nagpur in First Appeal No. A/10/497, vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 19.06.2010, passed by the District Forum, Nagpur in consumer complaint no. 125/2010, allowing the said complaint was set aside and the complaint was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant is the owner of a Toyota Innova Car, which was insured by the respondent/the opposite party Insurance Company for Rs.4,05,000/- under policy no. OG-10-1001-1801-00008000 for the period 10.06.2009 to 09.06.2010. As stated in the complaint, the said vehicle met with an accident on 15.07.2009, while being plied on Jabalpur-Nagpur Highway at 9.00 pm, when it dashed against a truck bearing no. MP-20-GA-0971, which was standing in the middle of the road. The vehicle was being driven by Ravi Singh Thakur at that time, who is stated to be the son-in-law of the complainant. The vehicle was severely damaged during the accident. An intimation about the accident was given to the police station at Buragy District Jabalpur as well as to the Insurance Company. It has been stated that the driver of the vehicle Ravi Singh Thakur had a driving licence valid upto 17.04.2018. The respondent Insurance Company appointed a surveyor, who inspected the vehicle at the spot. The vehicle was then taken to M/s. Grace Toyota Company, which gave the estimate of repairs as Rs.2,23,430/-. However, the respondent Insurance Company did not pay the bill for repairs to the Grace Toyota Company, due to which the vehicle remained parked at the premises of Grace Toyota Company for about six months. The respondent Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the petitioner/complainant had no insurable interest in the matter, as he had sold the vehicle to his son-in-law, Ravi Singh Thakur on 28.11.2008 and an agreement to that effect was also made. However, the complainant took the stand that the said agreement dated 28.11.2008 had been cancelled on 13.03.2009 and hence, the vehicle was still under the ownership of the complainant and the same was reflected in the record of the Regional Transport Officer and the registration book. The possession of the vehicle was also with the complainant. The complainant filed a consumer complaint in question claiming a sum of Rs.2,93,593/- from the opposite party, which included a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- as the car repair bill and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and torture.

3. The complaint was resisted by the respondent Insurance Company by filing a written statement before the District forum in which they admitted that there was an insurance policy in the name of the complainant, but stated that on the date of the accident, the said vehicle was in the possession of Ravi Singh Thakur, who had purchased the same vide agreement dated 28.11.2008. The Insurance Company stated that the complainant had no insurable interest in the matter and hence, was not entitled to get the insurance claim.

4. The District Forum decided the consumer complaint vide their order dated 19.06.2010 and directed the respondent Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs.2,23,430/- to the complainant alongwith Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. Being aggrieved against this order, the respondent Insurance Company challenged the same by way of First Appeal No. A/10/497 before the State Commission, which allowed the same, vide impugned order dated 15.07.2011. The appeal was allowed saying that the complainant was not the owner of the vehicle in view of the sale agreement dated 26.11.2008 between himself and Ravi Singh Thakur. There was no question of cancellation of the sale agreement, because there was no mention t