Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Om Prakash Gupta and another

The petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

It was the case of the complainant that one Mr. Fateh Bahadur Singh was the owner of a Hero Honda Motorcycle having registration No. UP52 A-1107, which was insured with the opposite party under a comprehensive scheme of insurance for a sum of Rs. 34,000 for a period from 6.9.93 to 5.9.94. The said owner of the motorcycle sold the vehicle to the complainant on 6.9.93. It was the complainant''s case that in the afternoon on 25.11.93, the complainant took his motorcycle to the ''Service Centre'' for getting the motorcycle serviced. When he came in the evening to pick-up the motorcycle, it was stated that the motorcycle has been taken away by an unknown boy. When the complainant did not get the motorcycle, he lodged an F.I.R. with the police as also preferred a claim before the petitioner. The petitioner repudiated the claim of the complainant. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint giving liberty to the respondent complainant to agitate the matter before the civil court. Aggrieved by this order, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission, who allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner to pay the value of the vehicle of Rs. 32,000 alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from 23.2.95 till its realization. Aggrieved by this order, this revision petition has been filed before us.

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

Two points have been agitated before us firstly, that since the case was registered by the police under Sections 406 and 379 of the I.P.C. against Mr. Maqbool Alam alone and secondly, that since the vehicle had already been transferred to the transferee but since the insurance policy was not transferred in the name of the complainant, no insurable interest could have been created in favour of the respondent complainant, hence in these circumstances the State Commission erred in allowing the complaint.

We have seen the material on record. There is no dispute that the original owner of the vehicle had obtained a comprehensive insurance policy, which also covered the risk of theft in this case. Upon loss of the motorcycle, the matter was reported to the police who registered the case under Sections 406 and 379 of I.P.C. We did not have the benefit of perusing the pleadings, since they have not been filed, but a perusal of the order of District Forum, reveals that not only F.I.R. was registered by the police, they have also filed the charge-sheet against Mr. Maqbool Alam under Sections 406 and 379, I.P.C. Once the police have registered the case under Section 379, in our view, the loss shall come within the definition of theft. The question of breach of trust by party will not affect the right of the person, who lost the vehicle and there is no dispute that the complainant lost the vehicle and police did register a case under Section 379 of I.P.C. besides under Section 406 of I.P.C. If the petitioner wanted to prove anything to the contrary, than they could have brought on record a copy of the charge-sheet to prove that Maqbool Alam had nothing to do with respondent No. 3 before us. Onus of proof was with the petitioner to prove their case which they have failed to do. As far as the factum of insurable interest is concerned, we need not delve any further except to reproduce G.R.10 issued by Tariff Advisory Committee under Indian Motor Tariff applicable for the period from 1.4.90 and admittedly this loss occurred in 1993. G.R. 10 reads as follows : 10. Transfers-On transfer of a vehicle the benefits under the policy in force on the date of transfer shall automatically accrue to the new owner.-If the transferee is not entitled to the benefit of the bonus or subjected to malus already shown on the policy, the recovery of the differences between his entitlement (if any) and that shown on the policy shall be waived till the expiry of the policy. However, on expiry and/or termination of the existing policy the transferee will be eligible for bonus or subjected to malus as per his own entitlement."

A mere perusal of G.R. 10 leaves us in no doubt that on sale of vehicle, the benefits under the policy in force on the date of transfer shall automatically accrue to the new owner, i.e., the complainant. It is the finding of the State Commission that the motorcycle already stood transferred in the name of the complainant in the record of R.T.O. Hence, in view of the provisions of G.R. 10 we are left with no doubt that the respondent complainant was entitled to the benefits accruing from the policy by theft.

In view of above, we see no merit in this revision petition, which is dismissed and we uphold the well reasoned order passed by the State Commission, which is as per law. No order as to costs.