IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3411 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 5, 2008 National Insurance Company Limited ...Petitioner Versus Azad Singh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 21.12.2007 (P-5), passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Services Utility), Gurgaon, directing the petitioner to get the loss assessed and then contest the case on merit. It has further been observed that if the petitioner fails to take steps in accordance with the directions within 15 days from the date of order i.e. 21.12.2007, then the applicant or the policy holder was held entitled to get the vehicle repaired and the matter was to be adjudicated afresh. Brief facts of the case are that one Azad Singh son of C.W.P. No. 3411 of 2008 Shri Inder Raj Singh-respondent No. 1 was owner of Maruti Car 800 Model 2000, bearing registration No. HR-26-K-8570. He transferred the car in favour of Shri Rakesh Chopra-respondent No. 2, who obtained an insurance policy in his name from the petitioner for one year, which was valid from 19.9.2006 to 18.9.2007. On 20.2.2007, the aforementioned car met with an accident and sustain damage. A D.D.R. No. 55B, dated 20.2.2007, was recorded in Police Station Basant Kunj and the petitioner insurance company was also informed. However, no Surveyor was appointed on the plea that Shri Azad Singh-respondent No. 1 was not the policy holder. It was claimed that Shri Azad Singh-respondent No. 1 did not have any locus standi to initiate claim as he had no insurable interest in the car. The Permanent Lok Adalat after hearing the parties recorded the order dated 21.12.2007 and its operative part reads as under:- “ We heard the parties. The respondent has failed to depute a surveyor for assessing the loss on the ground that the applicant was not the policy holder. He is still the regd. owner of the vehicle and in case he has transferred the same in favour of another person who has obtained the policy in his name, the case has not became merit less. The law applicable on the point shall be ascertained at the proper stage. There may be some distinction in the cases where the vehicle is transferred and the R.C. is also transferred in the name of transferee but the insurance policy still remains in the name of original owner as in cases 1996(1) Civil Court Cases 516 2 C.W.P. No. 3411 of 2008 (SC) and 2006(1) CPJ 441 relied upon by the respondent and in cases where registration still remained in the name of original owner even though the transferee obtains policy in his name 2007 (1) CPC 643. In such cases the insurance co. takes the plea that insured is not the registered owner and when the registered owner lays the claim it takes the plea that he is not the insured person and has no locus standi. It is a strange and clandestine way of defeating the right full claim against the insurance policy. The insurance is of a vehicle and not of a person. The insurance co. could refuse the policy if that person was not the regd. owner. The insurable interest are vis-à- vis the vehicle, so either of the two can claim the repair charges furnishing the indemnity bond for avoiding the double payment. So it was proper for the respondent to get the loss assessed & then contest the case on merit. So the respondent stands advised to get the loss assessed as it may be in its own benefit. In case the respondent takes no such steps within fifteen days from today, the applicant or the policy holder can get the vehicle repaired and than the matter be agitated afresh. The present application is hereby filed.” Having heard Mr. Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that there is no legal infirmity in the view taken by the Permanent Lok Adalat. We find that the Permanent Lok Adalat has rightly concluded that the 3 C.W.P. No. 3411 of 2008 insurable interests are in respect of the vehicle and either of the two persons, namely, respondent No. 1 or respondent No. 3 could claim the repair charges by furnishing the indemnity bond to avoid double payment. The petitioner insurance company could not have refused to depute a Surveyor for assessing the loss. Accordingly, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order dated 21.12.2007 (P-5). There is no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) March 5, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 4