K RAJAGOPAL Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has arisen from the order dated 21st October, 1992 of the State Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras.

(2.) THE facts lie in a narrow compass and may be stated. The complainant admittedly owned a vehicle bearing registration No. TDG 6666 on 9th October, 1988 when he obtained a comprehensive policy of insurance, including risk of theft, from National Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 1,13,000/-for a period upto8th October, 1989. On 15th June, 1989, the complainant entered into an agreement for sale of vehicle TDG 6666 with the second opposite party for a sum of Rs. 1,03,000/-. The complainant received a sum of Rs. 80,000/- on 15th June, 1989 and delivered possession of the said vehicle to the second Opposite Party. The, balance amount has not been received by the complainant. While the said vehicle was in the possession of second Opposite Party, it was lost by theft on 2nd August, 1989 and not traced. The complainant claiming to be the registered owner of the said vehicle filed the claim for compensation with the National Insurance Company who repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant had sold and delivered the vehicle and as there were variations in the insurable interest, the complainant is not entitiled to make any claim. The complaint filed before the State Commission has been dismissed.

(3.) THE State Commission is not wholly right in its interpretation of Clause 4 of the Exemption Clause of the Policy of insurance as follows: