The complainant must have insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of loss to be entitled to an insurance claim.

ORDER :

1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 16.8.2011 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 75 of 2010, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 3,80,000/- to the respondent – complainant together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of lodging of the claim till payment and Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and litigation expenses.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint are that the complainant is the registered owner of truck No. UA07-R-7467 (Tata 407). The said truck was insured with the appellant - IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited for the period from 17.4.2008 to 16.4.2009. However, the insured truck was stolen on 25.9.2008 from Jwalapur, Haridwar. The FIR of the incident was lodged with P.S. Jwalapur, Haridwar and intimation was also given to the insurance company. The insurance company, however, repudiated the claim vide their letter dated 7.7.2009 on the ground that on investigation of the matter, the investigator has found that the insured vehicle was sold to Sh. Vakil Ahmed S/o. Sh. Sager Ahmed, R/o. Mohalla Kasavan, Jwalapur, Haridwar in the month of January, 2008, i.e., much before the date of theft. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun.

3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the intimation with regard to the theft of the vehicle was given to them on 3.10.2008; that the subject vehicle was sold by the complainant to Sh. Vakil Ahmed vide agreement to sell dated 2.1.2008 and at the time of theft, the vehicle was under the control and possession of Sh. Vakil Ahmed; that the FIR of the incident of theft was also lodged by Sh. Vakil Ahmed; that the complainant was not entitled to any claim and his claim was rightly repudiated and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 16.8.2011 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6. The insurance company has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant had sold the insured vehicle to Sh. Vakil Ahmed vide agreement to sell dated 2.1.2008 and on the date of theft of the vehicle, i.e., 25.9.2008, the vehicle was under the custody and possession of Sh. Vakil Ahmed and the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle and, as such, the complainant was not entitled to any amount.

7. In support of its defence, the insurance company has placed reliance on the agreement to sell dated 2.1.2008 (Paper Nos. 26 to 27) executed between the complainant and Sh. Vakil Ahmed in regard to the sale of the subject vehicle. In the said agreement, it has specifically been mentioned that the First Party – complainant has sold the vehicle to the Second Party – Sh. Vakil Ahmed on 2.1.2008 for sum of Rs. 6,12,800/-, out of which, sum of Rs. 1,17,500/- has been paid and the remaining amount of Rs. 4,95,300/- shall be paid by Sh. Vakil Ahmed to the financier – Tata Motors Limited, Mumbai in 39 installments of Rs. 12,700/- each. It was further been mentioned in the said agreement that the possession of the vehicle has been delivered to the Second Party – Sh. Vakil Ahmed. There is no denial from the side of the complainant to this agreement to sell dated 2.1.2008. To the contrary, in para 8 of the consumer complaint, the complainant has admitted that he has entered into an agreement to sell dated 2.1.2008 with Sh. Vakil Ahmed in regard to the sale of the insured vehicle, but has stated that the vehicle was to be transferred