SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.—Petitioner
versus
Anil Sharma—Respondent
Revision Petition No.2038 of 2019 (Against the Order dated 18/06/2019 in Appeal No. 130/2018 of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh)
Decided on 17.9.2019

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Aditya Raina and Mr. Kumar M, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Registered owner of insured vehicle has right to maintain insurance claim.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 2 (30)—Insurance—Damage to vehicle in accident—Petitioner rejected claim on the ground that claimant did not have any insurable interest in subject vehicle at the time of alleged accident—Complaint allowed by State Commission in appeal—Claimant is registered owner of subject vehicle—Petitioner has not produced any document on record which could show that subject vehicle had been sold by insured to another person—There is no illegality or infirmity in impugned order—Revision Petition dismissed. (Paras 8, 9 and 10)

Result: Revision Petition dismissed.

ORDER

The present revision petition has been filed against the order of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla ( in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 130 of 2018 filed by the complainant against the order dated 18.04.2018 of the District Forum in his complaint No. 56 of 2016, whereby his complaint was dismissed by the District Forum.

2. Vide the impugned order, the order of the District Forum was set aside and complaint was allowed and following directions were issued:

“18. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed. Order of learned District Forum is set aside. It is ordered that Insurance company shall pay OD claim of vehicle in question to complainant to the tune of Rs.400000/- (Four lac)) which is IDV of vehicle in question alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till actual payment subject to furnishing NOC by complainant from lessee i.e. Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited VPO Gutkar District Mandi H.P. It is further ordered that in case complainant will not submit any NOC from lessee then entire IDV amount shall be transmitted in the loan account of complainant kept by lessee i.e. Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited VPO Gutkar District Mandi H.P for liquidation of loan amount. Complainant will execute subrogation deed in favour of Insurance company qua salvage of vehicle in question and complainant will hand over possession of salvage of vehicle to Insurance company within one month after receipt of certified copy of order.

19. It is further ordered that Insurance company shall pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.10000/- (Ten thousand) for mental agony and harassment. It is further ordered that Insurance company shall pay litigation costs to the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand). Insurance company shall complete the entire process within one month after receipt of certified copy of order. RC Annexure C-1, Insurance policy Annexure C-2 and report of Surveyor-cum-loss assessor namely Mohinder K. Sharma Annexure OP-4 shall form part and parcel of order. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that complainant who is the registered owner of vehicle no. HP-32B-0033 insured the same with the petitioner for the period 22.06.2014 to 21.06.2015. The insured value of the vehicle was Rs. 400000. During the existence of the policy, the vehicle met with an accident and was damaged. FIR No. 20 of 2015 was registered in the Police Station Balh on the statement of Shri Ajay s/o Shivram. Respondent ( hereinafter referred to as complainant) filed his claim with the petitioner. The petitioner, however, vide repudiation letter dated 17.08.2015 rejected the claim on the ground that claimant did not have any insurable interest in the subject vehicle at the time of alleged accident.

4. Aggrieved by the rejection, complainant filed a complaint wherein he had alleged that he was the registered owner of the vehicle and vehicle belonged to him. The stand of the petitioner was that complainant had sold this vehicle to Ajay and so he did not have any insurable interest in the vehicle and claim was liable to be rejected. The parties led their evidences before the District Forum. The complainant had furnished his affidavit and affidavit of Ajay. Ajay, who lodged the FIR had stated in the affidavit that registered owner of the vehicle is the complainant and denied of having purchased the subject vehicle from the complainant.

5. In affidavit filed by the petitioner, stand remained the same that complainant did not have insurable interest and he had sold the vehicle to Ajay.

6. The Distric

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top