ORDER

JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

The respondent / complainant company owned a car bearing registration No. DL

3 CBM – 5039 which it had purchased for its Managing Director Mr. Raj Gupta. The said car was got insured with the appellant company for the period from 11.2.2011 to

10.2.2012. On 9.9.2011, when Mr. Raj Gupta was driving the aforesaid car, its engine allegedly went off as a result of which the vehicle stopped in the middle of the road.

According to the complainant/respondent there was flood like situation at the time the vehicle stopped and therefore, the car had to be pushed to one side of the road from where it was towed to a car garage. On intimation being given to the appellant, a surveyor was appointed to assess the damage. The surveyor informed the complainant / respondent that since the engine of the car had got damaged due to hydrostatic lock caused by seepage of water, the damage was not covered under the policy. Based upon the report of the surveyor, the claim lodged by the complainant /

respondent company was repudiated by the appellant on the ground that the damage due to ingression of water was beyond the scope of the insurance policy. The appellant took the stand that it was liable to reimburse only a sum of Rs.7,262/-, that being the cost of filter element and labour for interior dry-cleaning. Being aggrieved, the complainant / respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint.

2. The complaint was resisted by the appellant which took a preliminary object that the company had no insurable interest in the private vehicle of the Managing Director.

On merits, it was alleged that the car was started / cranked several times in flood water, as a result of which it had got damaged and no additional cover had been taken by the complainant for the aforesaid damage.

3. The State Commission vide its order dated 07.10.2016 allowed the complaint and directed the appellant company to settle the claim by paying a sum of Rs.12,83,868/- to the complainant / respondent, along with interest on that amount @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.25,000/-

. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the insurer is before this Commission by way of this appeal.

4. The first question which arises for consideration is as to whether the complainant / respondent company had an insurable interest in the vehicle insured with the appellant company. It is an admitted position that the insurance policy in respect of the aforesaid vehicle was taken by none other than the respondent company. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid vehicle is registered in the name of the respondent /

complainant. There is no evidence or even allegation of the sale consideration for the purchase of the aforesaid vehicle having been paid by the Managing Director of the company and not by the company itself. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to para-1 of the complaint where it is alleged that the car was a private vehicle of the Managing Director of the complainant company. The aforesaid expression, as rightly clarified by the learned counsel for the complainant / respondent was intended to convey that the vehicle in question was meant for the private use of the Managing Director of the company. The said expression cannot be construed to mean that the sale consideration for purchase of the vehicle was paid by the Managing Director of the company from his own funds. Therefore, I find no merit in the preliminary objection. Moreover, a perusal of the letter dated 01.3.2012, written by the appellant to the respondent company would show that the alleged lack of insurable interest in the complainant company was not the ground for repudiating the claim.

Therefore, the appellant cannot be allowed to deny the claim on the aforesaid ground.

5. A perusal of the insurance policy would show that the appellant had inter-alia insured the vehicle a