BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PADAM DEV SON OF GOVIND RAM
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2010-9-18
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on September 28,2010

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
Padam Dev Son Of Govind Ram Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS appeal was initially listed for hearing on 23.09.2010, when learned counsel for the appellant was heard and on the request of Mr. Kaushal, Advocate learned counsel appearing vice Mr. Bhardwaj submitted that this case may be taken up for hearing on 24.09.2010, so that he was in a position to get some documents from the file of Commissioner Workmen s Compensation, at Bilaspur. As such matter was taken up on 24.09.2010. When after having heard learned counsel for the parties, order was reserved.
(2.) IN support of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Goel had argued hat taking everything to be correct as alleged by the respondent against his client without conceding, even then the impugned order passed by District Forum, Solan while allowing Consumer Complaint No.45/2008, dated 15.01.2010 is liable to be set aside. While buttressing this submission, Mr. Goel had pointed out that before the accident took place, in the face of admitted documents regarding transfer of vehicle by the respondent in favour of one Shri Jai Pal son of Shri Dhari Ram, as such he (respondent) had no insurable interest in terms of insurance policy subject to which vehicle was insured by his client. In this behalf, he relied upon Annexure OP -1, affidavit of respondent, Annexure OP -2 affidavit of Shri Jai Pal and Annexure OP -3 writing dated 01.09.2007 by the respondent. An alternate prayer was also made by Mr. Goel that even if his client was held liable for payment of any amount, even in such a situation, the impugned order deserves to be modified, because the respondent in such a situation is duty bound to return the salvage of vehicle in question after accident and by not making this direction, District Forum below was in error. Though he hastened to add, that by raising this submission, he is neither in any manner admitting, nor conceding the claim of the respondent, muchless giving up his earlier stand.
(3.) ALL these pleas were seriously contested by Mr. Kaushal, who appeared on behalf of respondent. According to him sale transaction was not complete between the parties, because Shri Jai Pal to whom vehicle was sold by his client had failed to fulfill the terms and conditions of arrangement where -under he had purchased the vehicle, as such his client had taken back the same. As such status quo ante regarding ownership came into existence in these circumstances. Thus, according to him no exception can be taken to the impugned order passed by District Forum below, and he prayed for upholding the same. During pendency of appeal, learned counsel for the respondent filed an application for placing on record by way of additional evidence agreement dated 24.09.2006 between the respondent and Shri Jai Pal. Vide separate order passed on the file, on 24.09.2010 at the time of hearing of this appeal, this application being M.A. No.677/2010 was rejected.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.