The main legal point established in the judgment is that the complainant-respondent had insurable interest in the vehicle and that the insurance company was under a legal obligation to indemnify the loss to the complainant-respondent as the vehicle was insured in his name.

JUDGMENT

Sunil Kumar Garg, President - This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1986") has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the order dated 8.8.2007 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur-I, Jaipur in case No. 235/2005 by which the complaint filed by the complainant-respondent under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 was allowed partly in the manner that the appellant-Insurance Company was directed to pay to the complainant-respondent a sum of Rs. 2,64,000 as insured amount "along with" interest @ 7% p.a. from 29.1.2005 till payment was made and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation within one month failing which the complainant-respondent would be entitled to get interest on the above amount @ 12% p.a. from the date of order till payment was made.

2. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:

The complainant-respondent had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 before the District Forum, Jaipur-I, Jaipur on 21.3.2005 stating inter alia that he has got his vehicle "Tata Sumo" bearing No. RJ 14-5-C 7637 insured with the appellant-Insurance Company through policy No. 370203/31/03/6109638 for the period from 11.3.2004 to 10.3.2005 and the sum insured was to the tune of Rs. 2,64,000. It was further stated in the complaint that the vehicle in question was being used by Shri Mukesh Bihari Ginani with the permission of the complainant-respondent. It was further stated in the complaint that on 8.8.2004, when the vehicle in question was in possession of Shri Mukesh Bihari Ginani, it was stolen away by some one and on 9.8.2004 in the morning, a report of that incident of theft was lodged by Mukesh Bihari Ginani in the Police Station Nahar Garh Road, Jaipur where FIR No. 130/2004 was registered and after usual investigation, the police submitted FR No. 38/2004 and the same was accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 16, Jaipur City, Jaipur. It was further stated in the complaint that information about the incident of theft of vehicle in question was also given by Mukesh Bihari Ginani to the appellant Insurance Company. Thereafter, for the theft of vehicle in question, a claim was preferred by the complainant-respondent before the appellant-Insurance Company, but that claim was repudiated by the appellant-Insurance Company through letter dated 29.1.2005 in the following manner:

"Re: Your claim No. 370203/31/04/61/00202 Sr. No. 1 on policy No. 370203/31/03/6109630.

Please note that your file stands closed on account of Sr. Nos. 1 and 3 below:

(1) In spite of letters/reminders sent to you, you have not complied with the required papers/documents.

(2) As you have withdrawn your claim by giving your consent through your letter dated...............we are closing your claim file as No Claim.

(3) We are closing your claim file, on account of the following reason

As per Investigation Report Insured Not Have Insurable Interest On Vehicle.

We absolve ourselves from any further liabilities, arising out of this claim, which please note."

Thereafter, the present complaint was filed.

A reply was filed by the appellant-Insurance Company before the District Forum on 6.6.2005 in which the appellant took the same plea which was taken by it in the repudiation letter dated 29.1.2005. It was further submitted that during investigation it was found that the vehicle in question was sold by the complainant-respondent to Mukesh Bihari Ginani for a consideration of Rs. 2,75,000 before the date of theft i.e. 8.8.2004 and the said vehicle was also in possession of Mukesh Bihari Ginani at the time of theft and, thus, on the date of theft of the vehicle in question, the complainant-respondent was not having any insurable interest because he had parted with the possession of the vehicle in question after taking consideration. Hence, claim of the complainant-respondent was rightly repudiated by the appellant through letter dated 29.1.2005 and the present co