UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs RIZWAN KHAN & ANR.

Learned counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard.

The case of the complainant, Shri Rizwan Khan is this. He obtained insurance policy in respect of TVS motorcycle from Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., opposite party No. 2. The vehicle in question was purchased from TVS Motors Company, opposite party No.1. It transpired that the insurance company had prepared the insurance policy in the name of his relative, Shri Aneesh Khan. When Shri Rizwan Khan, the complainant came to know about that, he submitted the information in this regard to the insurance company. The insurance company issued one endorsement dated 19.9.2009 in which the name of Shri Rizwan Khan was mentioned/replaced. Thereafter, the vehicle was stolen on 2.5.2010. The claim made by Shri Rizwan Khan was repudiated on the ground that he had no insurable interest in the said vehicle.

The District Forum dismissed the complaint but the State Commission allowed the complaint and the insurance company was directed to make payment of amount as claimed by the complainant, with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of claim till the realization of the amount of claim. Rs.15,000/- were imposed as compensation and Rs.7,000/- as expenses of claim and appeal in favour of the complainant.

Aggrieved by that order, the insurance company has filed the present revision petition. The main allegation of the petitioner/insurance compay is that the document dated 19.9.2009 is fabricated one. The insurance company did not make any endorsement. Moreover, there is no amendment in the policy itself. The policy itself continues to be in the name of Shri Aneesh Khan.

We have seen the record of District Forum. We have also gone through the insurance policy and the endorsement. The name of the insured is mentioned as ''Anees Khan''. The insurance policy is dated 13.10.2009 but the endorsement is dated 19.9.2009, that is prior to issuance of insurance policy. This fact casts a flim of doubt upon the endorsement. The policy number and endorsement mentioned in the endorsement number are different, which read as under: "Policy Number : 2311/50427967/00/000 Endorsement No. 2311/50424858/00/08"

The complaint has not come to the Commission with clean hands. In the complaint, the complainant himself submits that his relative, Shri Anees Khan purchased the vehicle in dispute. The case is silent when the vehicle was transferred in the name of Shri Rizwan Khan.

Written statement filed by the opposite party No. 2 shows that firstly the invoice was issued in the name of Shri Aneesh Khan but subsequently it was transferred in the name of Shri Rizwan Khan. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has invited our attention towards the invoice dated 19.9.2009 in the name of Rizwan Khan but the Registration before the RTO is dated 8.12.2009. It is difficult to fathom as to how the endorsement can be affected on 19.9.2009 when the registration was still in the name of Shri Aneesh Khan. It is thus clear that it is just like putting the cart before the horse. These are the pleas which are not bolstered by any evidence. One is not supposed to change the name with other person in the invoice. The invoice must state the name of the person and the invoice should also bear the date of replacement. Thereafter, there should be change in the registration certificate. The pleas raised by the complainant/respondent are nothing but a ruse to see that his plea succeeds.

Last but not the least, Shri Piyush Shankar, Senior Manager, Claims, Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. has filed the affidavit running into four pages wherein he has categorically denied having made the above said endorsement. In para 4 of the affidavit, it is mentioned: "I state that the Petitioner before the Ld. District forum raised the objection that the endorsement schedule produced by the Respondent No. 1 was forged and fabricated one and had also stated in its affidavit that such endorsement was neither issued by them nor the name of the Respondent No. 1 was transferred in their record."

It is crystal clear that there is no insurable interest between the petitioner/insurance company and the complainant.

The complainant, Shri Rizwan Khan is guilty of manipulating this document. He has made a vain attempt to pull the wool in the eyes of law. Consequently, we accept the revision petition, set aside the order passed by the State Commission and dismiss the complaint. The petitioner can withdraw the amount from the District Forum, Dousa after the expiry of 90 days from today.