UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. KAMAL SINGH S/O MEHAR CHAND
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2009-11-4
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on November 20,2009

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Appellant
VERSUS
Kamal Singh S/O Mehar Chand Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the complaint file.
(2.) ADMITTED facts giving rise to this appeal are that vehicle bearing registration No. HP -20A -8671 was registered in the name of the respondent. According to him, Jagir Singh son of Shri Amar Singh is his wife s brother. He had employed him to run the truck retaining its ownership with him. He had never sold/transferred/alienated the same to said Jagir Singh. Record of the complaint file further reveals that respondent was taken by the said Jagir Singh to Tehsil Complex, Una, where he got his signatures on papers at 6 -7 places and two registers of different persons. Later on it transpired that an affidavit of sale of the vehicle was got executed from the respondent and also a power of attorney in his, (Jagir Singh s) favour. When all these facts came to his notice particularly relating to affidavit of sale as well as power of attorney having been got executed by Jagir Singh in his favour from the respondent in a clandestine manner, respondent intended to take action against him. However, no action was taken because of the close relationship between Kamal Singh and Jagir Singh, latter being the brother of the wife of the former. As such, with the intervention of close relations and common acquaintances, a compromise deed was executed between the parties on 23.9.2002, whereby the matter was compromised regarding Jagir Singh having got prepared the affidavit regarding sale of the truck in question. It was agreed between the parties that respondent will not initiate any legal action against the said Shri Jagir Singh because of their close relationship as aforesaid. Jagir Singh was left with the right to look after and run the vehicle and nothing more. Affidavit above referred (Annexure OPR.3, dated 21.9.2002) is mentioned to be false and frivolous between Jagir Singh and respondent and it was agreed that the former will render monthly account to the respondent and will get Rs.5,000/ - as salary. And in case in future Jagir Singh commits any wrong act qua the truck in question or will utilize the power of attorney, then in such a situation Kamal Singh will have a right to initiate legal action against him. This agreement dated 23.9.2002 was executed in the presence of the witnesses without any pressure and in full senses.
(3.) IN the aforesaid background, Mr. Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant forcefully urged that Kamal Singh had no insurable interest when the truck was stolen on the intervening night of 30/31.7.2005 from village Arnila. It was not disputed that F.I.R., Annexure C.2 was lodged by Shri Jagir Singh regarding this incident of theft. Mr. Verma pointed out that this clearly demonstrates that respondent had no insurable interest any whatsoever left in the vehicle, because he had already parted ways with the same and sale transaction was complete between the parties with the delivery of the vehicle. According to him, District Forum below fell into error by ignoring this vital aspect of the case while allowing complaint No.21/2006 on 6.10.2007, directing the appellant to indemnify the respondent in the sum of Rs.4,05,000/ - with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 1.2.2006 till realization besides Rs.1,000/ - as cost of litigation. All these pleas were seriously contested and resisted on behalf of the respondent by its learned Counsel. According to him, there is no infirmity in the impugned order which may call for interference in this appeal. He thus prayed for dismissing the same with costs.;


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