Back
GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AHMEDABAD
R.P. DHOLAKIA, PRESIDENT, K.K. THAKKER, JYOTIBEN JANI, MEMBERS
Hasambhai Musabhai Abda-Appellant
Versus
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.-Respondent
Appeal No. 593 of 2009
Decided on : 04-02-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. R.V. Sakaria, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. P.V. Nanavati, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the concept of insurable interest, as determined by the relevant legal provisions, prevails over sale agreements and financing arrangements in the context of insurance claims.
Headnote:
Insurance - Insurable Interest - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sec.2(30) of M.V. Act, 1988 - Sec.2(7) of Sale of Goods Act - IRDA Act, 1999 - [INSURABLE INTEREST] - [Insurance] - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sec.2(30), M.V. Act, 1988, Sec.2(7), Sale of Goods Act, IRDA Act, 1999] - The court discussed the concept of insurable interest in the context of the ownership of a truck and the validity of an insurance claim. It interpreted the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, Sale of Goods Act, and IRDA Act to determine the legal ownership and insurable interest of the appellant, ultimately allowing the appeal and directing the respondent to pay the claim amount to the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, who earned his livelihood by driving a truck, had his truck damaged by fire and filed a claim with the insurance company. The insurance company repudiated the claim, arguing that the complainant had no insurable interest in the truck due to a sale agreement and financing arrangement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant had insurable interest as the legal and real owner of the truck, and the sale agreement and financing arrangement did not negate his insurable interest. The court allowed the appeal and directed the respondent to pay the claim amount to the complainant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complainant had insurable interest in the truck, considering the sale agreement and financing arrangement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant, as the legal and real owner of the truck, had insurable interest despite the sale agreement and financing arrangement, based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, the order of the lower forum was quashed, and the respondent was directed to pay the claim amount to the complainant with interest.
JUDGMENT :
1. Challenged in this appeal is order of Rajakot District Forum dated 26.5.2009 in Consumer Complaint No.229/2008.
2. Ld. Forum had passed order as under:
Impugned Order
The complaint stands dismissed. Complainant to bear his own cost and should pay cost of Rs-2000/- to opponent.
3. Appellant is original complainant and respondent is original opponent. For the sake of convenience, they will be referred as per original complaint.
4. It is the case of Complaint that he earns his livelihood by engaging himself in the occupation of driving the truck owned by him with the financial assistance of TML Financial Services Ltd.
It is alleged that complainant has purchased a comprehensive Motor Insurance Policy covering the risk of his truck from the opponent. It is alleged that during the currency of the policy, his truck was damaged by accidental fire and went on total loss. In turn, he submitted his claim with opponent insurance company which was illegally repudiated by the opponent insurance company, thereby committed deficiency in service. Therefore, complainant has claimed Rs. 12,28,000/- sum insured of damaged truck under the policy + Rs. 1,35,080/- as interest @ 18% from 26.1.2008 to 6.9.2008, in all Rs. 13,63,080/-.
5. The opponent on being served had filed their reply before Ld. Rajkot Forum vide Ex. 11. Opponent has admitted that the insurance policy was issued in favour of the complainant Mr. Hasambhai Musabhai Abda for the period from 21.7.2008 to 20.8.2008. It was subject to the terms and conditions laid down in the policy. It is admitted by opponent that complainant has submitted his claim.
It is denied by opponent that complainant earns his livelihood by engaging himself in the occupation of driving the truck owned by him, but contention of opponent is that complainant is doing transport business on huge basis. Therefore, the case complainant falls within the category of commercial purpose and the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The purpose of insurance is protection against financial loss due to accidental loss.
It is further contended by opponent that complainant has not insurable interest in the truck on the date of accident i.e. on 28.12.2007 but it was sold to one Mr. Safibhai Hasambhai Kureshi and he was in absolute control and possession of truck No. GJ 11Y 5786 on the date of accident. Therefore, opponent insurance company was under obligation to reimburse the complainant any alleged loss for the truck as the complainant has no insurable interest in the vehicle in question. Therefore claim of complainant is rightly rejected as per terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, opponent contended that complaint is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
6. Considering documents on record and arguments of parties the Id. Forum concluded that complainant used the truck for the commercial activities. Hence, complaint was dismissed.
Aggrieved by it, appellant filed this appeal.
7. The main contention of appellant is that, in Registration Book, the name of owner is Hasambhai Musabhai Abda. It also bears hypothecation endorsement in favour of TML Financial Services Ltd. Therefore, thus the parties, the appellant as well as TML Financial Services have got their insurable interest.
Further appellant in para 13 says that, the Ld. Forum has failed to appreciate the name of the owner and the insured mentioned in Survey report, permit of the vehicle and truck engagement form dated 5,11.2007 wherein the name of the owner is mentioned as Hasambahi Musabhai Abda. Thus, in all Govt. authority documents and other local documents, the name of owner is Hasambhai Musabhai Abda. At the time of accident and even at the time of complaint, Mr. Hasambhai Musabhai Abda i.e. present appellant was paving loan installments to M/s. TML Finance Limited and the custody of the vehicle was never given to anybody not it was sold to anybody and thus the Ld. Forum has failed to appreciate the true and correct fact
