STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Appeal No.A/19/408 (Arising against the order dated 03/01/2019 passed by the.D.F. South Mumbai in CC/15/6)

M/s.National Insurance Co.Ltd.

Regional office, Claims Hub, 5^th floor, Sterling Cinema Building

65, Marzban Street Fort, Mumbai 400 001 ...... Appellant/org.OP Versus Mr.Hemant R. Kombrabail R/at.F-5, Anandashram Shamrao Vithal Marg ………Respondents/org.complainant Grant Road, Mumbai 400 007 BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member PRESENT: Adv.Harshada Rane present for the appellant.

Adv.Deepen V. Dixit a/w. Adv.Jitesh Jadhav a/w.

Adv.Sanket Kasare are present for the respondent.

FINAL ORDER (Dt.22/05/2025)

Per Hon’ble Justice S.P.Tavade – President

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission, South Mumbai in consumer complaint no.CC/15/6 dated 03/01/2019, the original opponent-M/s.National Insurance Co.Ltd. has preferred this appeal. The parties to this appeal herein after shall be called and referred to as per their status in the original consumer complaint.

2. The complainant has contended that he had purchased second hand Maruti Esteem Car in the month of June 2008 having Registration No.MH 03 K 6526 from Mr.Atul Sinha. It was contended that the car was insured with the opponent company. The said insurance policy was issued in the name of the complainant. It was contended that the complainant had informed the agent of OP that the said car was not transferred in the name of the complainant. In spite of the said information, the OP issued the insurance policy in the name of the complainant. The complainant paid the insurance premium for the year 2008 till 2011. The insurance policy was valid from 31/05/2011 till 30/05/2012. It was contended that the original owner had professional commitments, therefore, he could not transfer the car in the name of the complainant. It was contended that on 12/08/2011 the car met with an accident. The incident of accident was reported to the police station and accordingly, the entry was taken in the daily book of the police station. The complainant could not visit the office of the OP immediately due to the professional assignment. Ultimately, on 08/11/2011, the complainant issued letter to the OP and informed about the accident. It was contended that the car was sent to the Garage for repairs and the complainant paid the amount of repairs to the extent of Rs.99,000/-.

3. It was contended that the OP issued letter dated 08/08/2012, whereby the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the complainant had no insurable interest in the car. It was also contended that the OP has also wrote letter to the complainant dated 17/08/2012 and informed the complainant that the car was not transferred in the name of the complainant on the date of the accident. Therefore, the claim was repudiated. It was contended that the complainant had issued letter to the OP and requested for reconsideration of his claim, but the same was not considered. Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated 08/02/2014, which was replied by the OP by letter dated 06/03/2014 and again repudiated the claim. Hence, the complaint came to be filed.

4. Notice of the complaint was issued to the OP. The OP appeared and filed written notes of arguments along with the documents. It was contended that the complainant was not the owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident.

It was contended that the insurance policy was issued in the name of the complainant in utmost good faith on the basis of the proposal form. It was contended that the complainant had assured the OP that the process of transferring the vehicle in the name of the complainant would be undertaken within 15 days but the complainant failed to get the vehicle transferred in his name till the date of the accident. It was contended that at the time of renewal of the policy, the complainant did not disclose the mater