Puran Singh Rathore vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr

V.K.Jain, J

The complainant, namely, Puran Singh Rathore obtained an insurance policy from the respondent in respect of a vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-32-TA-0287. The said vehicle met with an accident and a claim was lodged with the insurer. The claim was repudiated vide letter dated 8.4.2015 which to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-

"3. We are closing your claim file on account of the following reason:

The vehicle purchased by you was a stolen one since there was no valid fitness and route permit of the same on the date of the accident the claim file is hereby closed."

Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.

The complaint was resisted by the insurer on several grounds. It was stated in the written version filed by the insurer that the permit in respect of the vehicle in question had expired on 26.11.2013, whereas the fitness had expired on 15.6.2011. The road tax had not been paid after 30.9.2010. The vehicle was driven for a number of years on expiry of the permit and fitness, thereby contravening several provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and conditions of the insurance policy. It was also stated in the written version filed by the insurer that the vehicle in question was a stolen vehicle and on verification, it was found that the District Transport Officer, Kotputli had lodged FIR No.473 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the I.P.C. against the previous owner of the vehicle. It was also stated in the written version filed by the insurer that the previous owner of the vehicle, namely, Manoj Yadav claimed to have purchased the vehicle from J.S. Four wheels Motors (P) Ltd. On verification by the District Transport Officer, it was found that the said vehicle had not been sold to J.S. Four Wheels Motors (P) Ltd. It was also found that the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle had been altered.

The District Forum having dismissed the consumer complaint, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, he is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

The FIR lodged by the District Transport Officer, as per the written version of the insurer would shows that the complainant/petitioner is not a bonafide purchaser of the vehicle since the person from whom he claims to have purchased it from Manoj Yadav is not a bonafide owner of the vehicle. He claimed to have purchased this vehicle from J.S. Four Wheels Motors (P) Ltd. which was not the owner of the vehicle from any point of time. No evidence was produced before the District Forum to prove the entire chain of transactions starting from the original sale of the vehicle to prove that the complainant/petitioner was a bonafide purchaser of the vehicle. The very fact that the engine and the chassis number of the vehicle were found altered was yet another proof that the complainant is not a bonafide purchaser of the vehicle. As noted earlier, the fitness and permit of the vehicle had expired years before it met with an accident. The same had expired even before the insurance policy was taken. Therefore, the complainant/petitioner has failed to prove that he has an insurable interest in the vehicle subject matter of the insurance policy. The entire claim and in fact even the insurance cover taken by the complainant/petitioner appears to be founded on fraud and deceit. The view taken by the Fora below, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.