IMPORTANT POINT
If vehicle is hypothecated with any bank, same cannot be legally sold to another person unless loan is fully paid off and hypothecation is removed from vehicle’s registration certificate.

ORDER

Inder Singh Mehta, President—The instant appeals are arising out of the common order dated 06.11.2023 passed by learned District Commission, Kullu in consumer complaint No.12/2022 titled Sh. Ajay Sharma Versus The Divisional General Manager, Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., whereby the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to pay Rs.4,97,491/- on net of salvage basis to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till payment/deposit. The opposite parties were further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.6,000/- on account of harassment and mental tension and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.

Brief facts of the Case:

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No.HP-66A-4888 which was insured with the opposite parties/insurance company w.e.f. 12.08.2019 to 11.08.2020. On 16.01.2020, the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident at village Mohal and intimation of accident was given to police vide FIR No.11/2020 as well as insurance company. The vehicle was taken to Solan and on inspection, repair cost was found to be more than of Rs.13,50,000/- i.e. value of the vehicle, as such, the vehicle was declared as total loss. But the surveyor of insurance company has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,77,000/-. On 05.10.2021, the claim of the complainant was rejected by the insurance company on the ground that there was a sale agreement between the complainant and one Sh. Apurv Negi and as such, the complainant was having no insurable interest. The aforesaid agreement was never acted upon, as the vehicle was financed and hypothecated with Punjab National Bank, therefore, it could not have been sold. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The opposite parties filed reply and stated that on intimation of accident, Mr. Sunil Kumar (Advocate) was hired to investigate the matter and he submitted his report on 02.01.2021. During investigation of criminal case, it was found that the vehicle was registered in the name of complainant, but on 21.08.2019, the complainant sold the said vehicle to one Mr. Apurav Negi vide agreement to sell. The surveyor assessed the damage of vehicle as total loss to the extent of Rs.4,97,491/- on net of salvage basis, but the opposite parties/insurance company were not liable to indemnify the complainant for the reason that complainant had already sold the vehicle to one Mr. Apurav Negi and he was having no insurable interest. A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

4. The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply and denied the allegations made in the reply and the averments of complaint were re-affirmed and reasserted.

5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After hearing the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint of the complainant.

7. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, the complainant and opposite parties filed these two separate appeals.

8. Arguments heard on behalf of the parties and perused the record of the case file carefully.

9. Learned counsel of the appellant/insurance company has submitted that the complainant was owner of vehicle bearing No.HP-66A-4888 which was insured with the appellant-company. On 16.01.2020, the vehicle in question met with an accident. The vehicle in question was being driven by Mr. Apurav Negi who died in the said accident. The insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant had already sold the said vehicle to Mr. Apurav Negi on 21.08.2019 vide agreement to sell and as such, the complainant has got no insurable interest in the vehicle in question. He further submitted that as per