Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 1378
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J.
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others - Petitioners
Vs.
Abhishek Kumar and another - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 14086 of 2016
Decided On : 11-08-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate.
The transferee of a vehicle is entitled to the benefits of the insurance policy, and technical pleas should not be used to defeat genuine claims.
Headnote:
Insurance - Legal Services Authorities Act - Section 22 (C) - 1987 - The judgment discusses the application of Section 22 (C) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and the implications of the judgments in Mallamma (Dead) By LRs VS. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2014 (2) CCC 694, and M/s Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. VS. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, 1996 AIR (SC) 586, in a case involving a claim for theft of a motorcycle insured with the petitioner-Insurance Company.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the payment of an insurance claim for the theft of a motorcycle. The original owner sold the vehicle to another person, and the theft occurred during the currency of the insurance policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer of the vehicle to the new owner entitled the new owner to the benefits of the insurance policy, and the Permanent Lok Adalat's decision to award the claim was upheld.
Issues: The main issue was whether the new owner of the vehicle was entitled to the insurance claim for the theft that occurred during the currency of the insurance policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that the transferee of a vehicle steps into the shoes of the transferor, including regarding the benefit of the insurance policy. The court also emphasized that technical pleas raised by the insurance company to defeat genuine claims should not be the object of any insurance policy.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the Permanent Lok Adalat's decision to award the claim was upheld.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J.
1. Instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.4.2016 passed by learned Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ambala Camp Court at Kaithal, whereby application of the insured moved under Section 22 (C) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, was allowed, directing the petitioner-Insurance Company to pay the amount to the insured on account of theft of his motorcycle, which was admittedly insured with the petitioner-Insurance Company.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Permanent Lok Adalat has misdirected itself, while placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallamma (Dead) By LRs VS. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2014 (2) CCC 694, which was not applicable to the facts of the present case. He also places reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. VS. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, 1996 AIR (SC) 586, to contend that respondent No.1 was not entitled for the claim put by him, because there was no privity of contract between the parties. He prays for allowing the present writ petition, by setting aside the impugned order.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the impugned order passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat has not been found suffering from any patent illegality or perversity, the same deserves to be upheld. The writ petition is without any merit which is liable to be dismissed for the following more than one reasons.
4. Facts are hardly in dispute. Original owner of the vehicle was Ravi, who was insurance policy holder. Petitioner-Insurance Company was insurer and Ravi was insured. It is also not in dispute that original policy holder namely Ravi sold the vehicle in favour of Abhishek Kumar respondent No.1. It is neither pleaded nor argued case on behalf of the petitioner that theft of the vehicle did not take place, during currency of the insurance policy.
5. Once the petitioner-Insurance Company itself has admitted that motorcycle in question was sold by original policy holder to respondent No.1 and vehicle also stood transferred in favour of respondent No.1, he would certainly be entitled for the benefits of insurance policy because theft of motorcycle took place during currency of the insurance policy. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that learned Permanent Lok Adalat committed no error of law, while passing the impugned order and the same deserves to be upheld.
6. The relevant observations made by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, in operative part of the impugned order, deserves to be noticed and the same read as under-
“After giving due consideration to the pleas of both the parties we are of the confirmed view that the petitioner is entitled to receive the claim i.e. the insured value of motorcycle amounting to Rs. 34,000/- for the theft of motorcycle bearing No. HR-40D-7410 from respondents. Now the perusal of letter dated 31.1.2014 Ex.P11 written by respondent insurance company to Ravi shows that insurance company has written to Ravi that the aforesaid vehicle has been sold by you to Sh. Abishek Walia S/o Narinder Kumar R/o 922/25, Gurudwara Colony, Rohtak Road, Jind on 6.9.2013 and NOC was also issued by Registring Authority (MV) Assandh, District Karnal in the name of Sh. Abhishek Walia vide letter dated 10.9.2013, so, there is no insurable interest of insured Ravi S/o Brizpal on the date of alleged loss/theft i.e. 20.09.2013. Further, perusal of reply to notice dated 3.6.2014 by respondent insurance company through Sh. M.R. Miglani, Advocate served by petitioner Abhishek Kumar upon respondent insurance company also reveal that it has been mentioned in this notice that Abhishek had purchased the motorcycle from Ravi and it ha
