NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs. RAJESH GUPTA
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) RESPONDENT purchased one Tata
Sumo from one Shri Vijay Veer Chabra on 23rd June, 1999 and obtained the
insurance policy from the appellant against theft and other incidence for
Rs. 3,36,000 on 25th June, 1999. Insurance Cover Note was issued in the
name of respondent on receipt of cheque issued by him and on the strength
of insurance receipt and sale letter and other documents. However, the
vehicle was still registered in the name of the original owner in the
Regional Transport Authority where the formalities for issuing
registration certificate in the name of respondent were pending that in
the meantime the vehicle was stolen on 4th November, 1999. The claim of
the respondent was repudiated solely on the ground that he was not the
registered owner of the vehicle and as such insurable interests were not
transferred in his name.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved the respondent approached the District Forum and obtained the impugned order dated 14.8.2002 whereby the appellant has
been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,30,000 along with interest @ 12% and
Rs. 1,000 as litigation expenses.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
The main contention of the Counsel for the appellant is that in terms of Sub -section (30) of Section 2 of Central Motor Vehicles Act the
respondent is not the registered owner and since the registration in the
instant case was still in the name of the original or first owner the
respondent had no locus standi to file claim nor was entitled to receive
the same. It is however, contended by the Counsel for the appellant that
˜Insurance Cover Note was issued to the respondent merely on handing
over the sale letter and Forms 29 and 30 under Motor vehicles Act but it
did not mean that the insurance policy was subsisting in the name of the
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.