- (1.) THIS is Insurance Company's appeal against the order dated 27.8.2007 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar, allowing consumer complaint No.334 of 2006 and directing the Insurance Company to pay to the complainant sum of Rs.25,000 together with interest @ 6% p.a. pendente lite and future and Rs. 2,000 towards litigation expenses, within a month from the date of the order.
(2.) THE facts of the case, inbrief, are that the complainant Sh. Brijveer Singh had purchased a motorcycle from Sh. Sanjay, a resident of Delhi on 28.8.2004 for Rs. 25,000. On 30.8.2004, this motorcycle was stolen by some unknown person. The complainant lodged an FIR with the police. The motorcycle was insured with The New India Assurance Company Limited for the period from 21.11.2003 to 20.11.2004 against a risk of Rs. 25,002. However, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle was not transferred in the name of the complainant and, therefore, he is not entitled for the claim amount. This led the complainant to file a consumer, complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar, which allowed the same vide its order dated 27.8.2007 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal.
(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record in the light of the legal aspect of the case. The genuineness of the theft of the motorcycle on 30.8.2004, is not in dispute. The final report submitted by the police and the investigation report of the investigator deputed by the Insurance Company have nowhere doubted the genuineness of the theft. The main question in this case is as to whom the loss should be indemnified. The Insurance Company has admitted that the seller Sh. Sanjay had submitted the claim form, but the claim was repudiated on the ground that he had transferred the vehicle to the complainant. The complainant is being denied the claim on the ground that there is no privity of contract between the Insurance Company and the complainant and, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer of the Insurance Company. Thus, the complainant cannot allege deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company has also stated that the documents dated 28.8.2004, the sale letters, receipts, etc., showing the transfer of the vehicle to the complainant, are manipulated and have been fabricated by Sh. Sanjay and the complainant in collusion with each other. We do not find these statements tenable and feel that the Insurance Company is trying to avoid its liability either on one ground or the other. As a matter of fact, the Insurance Company has failed to examine the complainant's claim case in the light of its legal aspect. The words like "transfer", "owner", etc. have been used by the appellants in appeal and other documents, but the Insurance Company has interpreted them in its favour, so that the liability to compensate the loss could be avoided.;