BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA First Appeal no.SC/47/A/101/2019 (Arisen out of order dated 08.08.2018 in Consumer complaint no.CC/2016/53 of District Forum, Ratnagiri)

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Claim Officer, Claims Department, Commerce Zone, Samrat Ashok Path, Yerwada, Pune – 411006

2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Branch Manager, D-3, D-4, Second Floor, Royal Prestige, Sykes Extension, Shahupuri, Kolhapur Through its Legal Officer Mr. Adityu In-

Tambekar.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd Tower

1, 1st Floor, Commer Zone, Samrat Ashok Path, Yerwada, Pune – 411006. ...........Appellant(s)

Versus Shaukat Hasan Shaikh, Age : Major, Occu. Not Known, R/o. 747 K/9, Adarsh Nagar, Charmalay, State Bank Colony, Majgaon Road, Tal./Dist. Ratnagiri. ............Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.P. Tavade, President Hon’ble Mr.Vijay C. Premchandani, Member For the Appellant :

Adv.P.D.Alawekar For the Respondent/s: Adv.R.R.Wayangankar

ORAL ORDER

Per Hon’ble President, Mr.Justice S.P.Tavade (1) Present appeal is filed by the appellant insurance company/original opponent being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 08.08.2018 passed in consumer complaint no.CC/2016/53 by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ratnagiri. Both the parties are to be called as per their status in the original complaint.

(2) The complainant alleged that he was owner of a Truck bearing registration no.MH 10 Z 3978. It was contended that the complainant had purchased the said vehicle availing loan from a finance company. However, due to his ill health, he gave his truck to Malikjan Nadisab Devarmani, r/o.Ichalkaranji, Tal.Hatkangale for running his business. In return, Devarmani used to give Rs.30,480/- per month to the complainant, but Devarmani did not give said installments. In the month of February 2014, complainant received a phone call from Ichalkaranji police station that his truck was seized in crime. Complainant had to get released the said truck through Judicial Magistrate, Class-1, Ichalkaranji, but since said truck was not insured, he did not get back the truck. Hence, the complainant took insurance for the truck from opponent for the period from 03.06.2015 to 02.06.2016.

(3) It was contended that after getting possession of truck, complainant sent the truck to Ratnagiri on 13.06.2015. When the truck was in Ghat Section, some noise was coming from truck. Driver of the truck stopped it and locked it and went to Ratnagiri to bring mechanic. On next day, the truck was not found on that spot. Hence, he made enquiries with nearby people, but truck was not found. He went to Devrukh Police Station on 15.06.2015 and submitted an application, but police again suggested him to do enquiry. On 16.06.2015, complainant gave written complaint to Devrukh Police Station. On the basis of which FIR was to be lodged. The complainant gave intimation regarding theft of the truck to the insurance company and also filed claim. Said claim was repudiated by the opponent on the ground that there was a delay of 9 days in lodging FIR as well as no safety steps were taken by the driver of the truck and claim was repudiated. Hence, the complainant filed consumer complaint.

(4) Notice of the complaint was issued to the opponent. Opponent insurance company appeared before the District Commission and filed written version. Insurance policy regarding truck was admitted by the opponent. It was contended that the complainant had sold his truck to Malikjan Nadisab Devarmani and therefore, the complainant had no insurable interest in the truck. It was contended that as the truck was sold, the complainant had no right to take policy of the truck from the opponent and he committed violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The opponent insurance company has not denied that the truck was insured. The complainant had taken policy of the truck from the period from 03.06.2015