Civil Writ Petition No.13679 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13679 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: MAY 9, 2011 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. .....Petitioner VERSUS Chanderpal & another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Subhash Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. GP Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Respondent No.1-Chanderpal has approached Permanent Lok Adalat, Gurgaon, at a pre-litigation stage seeking release of insured value for theft of his vehicle, which was insured with the petitioner- Company. Auto Riksha No. HR– 55D-7687 was insured with the petitioner. On 6.7.2006, the vehicle was stolen. Police was informed immediately. An FIR No.856, dated 13.10.2006 was registered with the Police Station, Gurgaon. The vehicle Civil Writ Petition No.13679 of 2009 -2- remained untraced. Then, respondent No.1 filed a claim with the petitioner-Company, which was repudiated. He had, accordingly, approached the Lok Adalat. In response to the notice, appearance had put on behalf of the petitioner. It was pointed out that the applicant (herein respondent No.1) had sold his vehicle in favour of Geeta Nand and so he had lost insurable interest in the vehicle and that Geeta Nand had no right to maintain claim as there is no privity of contract between him and the petitioner. The Permanent Lok Adalat after hearing the parties allowed the claim. The petitioner-Company is before this Court to challenge the award of the Lok Adalat in declining the claim ignoring the fact that the vehicle had not been sold. The FIR was lodged by Geeta Nand as he was having custody thereof. It is not enough to conclude that the vehicle was sold to him. The Lok Adalat came to the conclusion that even if any sale transaction has taken place, the company cannot avoid contract on that ground as it is the vehicle, which is insured and not a person. In this regard, support has been sought from a case titled as 'National Insurance Co. Versus Rajesh Gupta', 2007(1) CPC 647. To contest this, counsel for the petitioner has placed before me a decision in CWP No.21447 of 2008, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Permanent Lok Adalat Gurgaon & another, decided on 20.9.2010. This court on the basis of law laid down in the case of M/s Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., AIR 1996, SCC Civil Writ Petition No.13679 of 2009 -3- 586 has held that it is only in respect of third party risks that Section 157 of the New Act provides that the certificate of insurance together with the policy of insurance described therein “shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred”. If the policy of insurance covers other risks as well i.e. damage caused to the vehicle of the insured himself, that would be a matter falling outside Chapter XI of the New Act and in the realm of contract for which there must be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee, the former undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle. On this basis, this Court has taken a view and has set aside the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat in the said case. To my mind, the ratio of law laid down would not be much applicable to the facts of the present case. Here, the applicant is not a transferee, but an original insurer. There may be an agreement to sell the vehicle. The vehicle has not been transferred. It is not transferee before the Court, but the original allottee, who has got the vehicle insured. The aspect covered in Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.'s case (supra) does not fall within the ambit of the present case. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. May 09, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE