IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance policy entitles insured only to reimburse for loss suffered by him.

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The petitioner/complainant who owned a dumper bearing no. MP-43G-1719 had got the same insured with the respondent company for the period from 14.04.2009 to 13.04.2010. The said dumper while in possession of one Jitender Singh Rathore, was stolen in the night of 01.04.2010. A claim for reimbursement in terms of the insurance policy taken by him was lodged by the complainant/petitioner with the respondent company. The claim however, was rejected on the ground that the petitioner/complainant having sold the dumper to Jitender Singh Rathore before it got stolen, had no insurable interest in the vehicle. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.

2. The complaint was resisted by the insurer primarily on the same ground on which the claim had been rejected.

3. The District Forum vide its order dated 09.05.2011, dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 31.10.2015, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner/complainant. Being still dissatisfied, the petitioner/complainant is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

4. It is not in dispute that the dumper in question was in possession of Sh. Jitender Singh Rathore and was in his use when it got stolen. The FIR was also lodged by Sh. Jitender Singh Rathore. In his statement to the police, Shri Jitender Singh inter-alia stated that the aforesaid dumper was purchased by him from Fazle Mubeen Khan in January 2009 for a total consideration of Rs. 12 lacs out of which Rs. 3 lacs were paid in cash and the remaining Rs. 9 lacs were agreed to be paid to the financer M/s India Bulls Finance Company. He further stated that the monthly installment of Rs. 21,000/- was being paid by him to the financer. The dumper was being driven by his driver namely Merulal when it got stolen on the night intervening 31.03.2010/01.04.2010/

5. A perusal of the agreement between the petitioner/complainant and Sh. Jitender Singh shows that the dumper was sold to Sh. Jitender Singh for a consideration of Rs. 12 lacs out of which Rs. 3 lacs were paid to the petitioner/complainant on 18.03.2009 in the presence of two witnesses and the balance amount of Rs. 9 lacs was agreed to be paid by Sh. Jitender Singh to the financer. It was further agreed between the petitioner/complainant and Sh. Jitender Singh that in case of default in payment of installments to the financer, it is the purchaser Mr. Jitender Singh who will be wholly responsible for the consequences and the petitioner/complainant will not be liable in this regard. It was recorded in the agreement that the insurance policy as well as the documents of the dumper had been delivered to Sh. Jitender Singh. It was recorded that the possession of the dumper had already been delivered to him on 22.01.2009 and in case of any accident or theft of the dumper, Sh. Jitender Singh alone would be responsible. The responsibility of insurance was also taken by Sh. Jitender Singh upon himself. The aforesaid averments were reiterated in the Power of Attorney executed by the petitioner/complainant in favour of Sh. Jitender Singh.

6. Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act to the extent it is relevant provides that where there is a contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods, the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred. For the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties regard shall be had to the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case. Unless a different intention appears, the rules contained in section 20 to 24 are the rules for ascertaining the intention of the parties as to the time at which the property in the goods is to pass to the buyer. Section 20 of the Act provides that w