Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by opposite parties is directed against the order dated 29.1.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No.782 of 2008 filed by respondent/complainant was allowed in the following terms ; “We are of the opinion that the complainant was unnecessarily harassed in this case by the OPs, particularly by OP-2 who had been writing the letters and demanding documents which he could not have demanded either under the insurance policy or under the law. He, therefore, not only delayed the payment of the claim for about 15 months but also harassed the complainant mentally and physically and compelled her to go to Delhi thrice for getting the RC transferred in their favour, which he could not have asked for. We are, therefore of the opinion that not only for causing delay in the payment of the claim amount but also for causing mental and physical harassment and for adopting unfair trade practice the OPs should be directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant. We order accordingly. The amount alongwith the litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid by the OPs jointly and severally within thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which they would be liable to pay interest thereon @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 26.3.2007 (one month after the submission of the claim) till the payment is actually made to the complainant. Needless to mention that if the amount is paid by/recovered from the Insurance company (OP-1), it may recover the same from OP-2 by adopting proper procedure and giving him opportunity of being heard as required under the relevant rules.” 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the Complainant got his Maruti Car insured with the OPs, which she lost on 22.2.2007 from Sector 17, Chandigarh. FIR No.76 dated 22.2.2007 was lodged with PS, Sector-17,Chandigarh. Accordingly, a claim was lodged with the OPs on 26.2.2007 along with all the requisite documents. Untraceable report, copy of RC, original keys and bank details were submitted on 4.6.2007. It was alleged that the OPs unnecessarily asked for documents which were at all not required and had taken long time of 15 months to settle the claim , during which period she had to face mental agony, physical unrest and mental torture, but she was not compensated for delay, mental torture, physical unrest, undue harassment. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum seeking interest, compensation and other expenses she had to incur for getting the RC transferred on behalf of the insurance company. 4. On the other hand, the case of Opposite Parties before the District Forum was that there was no deficiency in service on their part as the claim in question had been fully and finally settled as per the terms and conditions of the Policy and an amount of Rs.31,500/- was released to the Complainant, which she had accepted in full and final settlement of her claim and had accordingly given discharge voucher. It was pleaded that the complainant took time to complete the formalities and as such the delay was on the part of the complainant for which OPs were not liable. The registration certificate of the vehicle was required to be transferred in the name of insurance company and untraceable report was required to be issued by the court and such formalities were necessary for settling theft cases. It was pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on their part and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved against the said order, opposite parties have come up in this appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The main point of arguments raised on behalf of the complainant is that here in the instant case the Maruti Car was stolen on 22.2.2007 and upon intimation of the claim, an investigator for the purpose of investigating and scrutinizing the claim was appointed. The complainant was asked to complete the formalities which were completed in piecemeal despite repeated letters written by OPs in that regard. The complainant also approached the Insurance Ombudsman but still documents were not supplied and the Insurance company acted in a bona fide manner and had been in continuous correspondence with the complainant. The complainant had forwarded an untraced report given by SDPO only, so she was asked to submit the untraceable report duly accepted by the court of law . The untraced report and Registration Certificate duly transferred in the name of Insurance Company was submitted on 23.5.2008 and on the same day the amount of insurance claim was released. The period of 15 months taken in the process was bona fide and cannot be attributed to the Insurance company. It was further argued that the amount awarded by the District Forum as compensation and interest is on the higher side and as the conduct of the employees of Insurance Company in this case does not amount to deficiency in service specially in view of the fact that the facts of the present case were complex and various discrepancies were pointed out by the investigator and further the officials dealt with the claim in the utmost diligent manner by taking into consideration various documents, so OP NO.2 may be exonerated from the remarks/observation made in the impugned order. However, these points of arguments have been repelled by the learned counsel for complainant who submitted that the complainant was unnecessarily harassed and the compensation awarded by the learned District Forum is justified. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon an authority of Hon’ble National Commission in Col. Bhim Singh Vs Regional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr I(1992)CPJ 205(NC). 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above points of arguments and find the same to be devoid of any merit, inasmuch-as with regard to submitting of untraced report duly accepted by the court, no provision of Law or Rule has been placed on record. The complainant vide her letter dated 8.10.2007 also requested OPs to send her the rules in that respect but they kept mum. The investigation in a theft is carried out by the Police and in case they fail to trace out the stolen properly, untraced report is submitted. The investigator appointed by the OPs could verify this fact from the police record. Instead of asking the investigator to obtain a copy of the untraced report and ignoring the report submitted by the complainant, OP NO.2 introduced his own condition that the same should be accepted by the court. In the absence of an agreement or a condition of the insurance policy, OPs could not have asked the complainant for such a report. After the claim was submitted, it was the duty of the insurance company to verify these facts and to obtain copy of the untraced report themselves from the police authorities, so that the consumer is not harassed on this pretext. 8. It is worth mentioning here that the Provisions of Motor Vehicle Act,1988 and Central Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 make it clear that the duty to get the entry made in the certificate of registration and to pay fee thereof is that of the Insurance Company and not of the complainant but still OPs insisted the complainant to get it transferred in their favour. The observations made by the learned District Forum in this regard are relevant to be reproduced here as under ; “The learned counsel for the OPs could not point out any provision in the policy of insurance (Annexure R-1) under which it was the duty of the complainant to get the RC transferred in their favour before the claim was paid to her. In this respect we may refer to Section 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Rule 55 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 which are as follows :- “50. Transfer of ownership. (1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred, (a) the transferor shall,- (i) in the case of a vehicle registered within the same State, within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee; and (ii) in the case of a vehicle registered outside the State, within forty-five days of the transfer, forward to the registering authority referred to in sub-clause (i)- (A) the no objection certificate obtained under section 48;or (B) in a case where no such certificate has been obtained,- (I) the receipt obtained under sub-section (2) of section 48; or (II) the postal acknowledgment received by the transferor he has sent an application in this behalf by registered post acknowledgment due to the registering authority referred to in section 48, together with a declaration that he has not received any communication from such authority refusing to grant such certificate or requiring him to comply with any direction subject to which such certificate may be granted; (b) the transferee shall, within thirty days of the transfer, report the transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration. xxx xxx xxx” Rule 55 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules reads as follows : 55. Transfer of ownership.—(1) Where the ownership of a motor vehicle is transferred, the transferor shall report the fact of transfer in Form 29 to the registering authorities concerned in whose jurisdiction the transferor and the transferee reside or have their place of business. (2) An application for the transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle under sub- clause (i) of clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 50 shall be made by the transferee in Form 30, and shall be accompanied by— (i) the certificate of registration; (ii) the certificate of insurance; and (iii) appropriate fee as specified in Rule 81. xxx xxx xxx” In this manner it is clear that where the ownership of any motor vehicle is transferred, the transferor is to report the fact of transfer in form No.29 to the Registering Authority concerned in whose jurisdiction the transferor and the transferee reside, meaning thereby she was just to fill up form No.29 and submit the same either to the Registering Authority or as per the prevailing practice, the OP may get it for submitting the same alongwith the other papers. In view of Sub Section 1(b) of Section 50 it is the transferee who shall within 30 days of the transfer, report the transfer to the Registering Authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business and shall forward the certificate of registration to that Registering Authority together with the prescribed fee and a copy of the report received by him from the transferor in order that particulars of ownership may be entered in the certificate of registration. These provisions make it clear that the duty to get the entry made in the certificate of registration and to pay fee therefor is that of the OPs and not of the complainant”. 9. Thus, the Learned District Forum rightly appreciated all the aspects of the case and awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing delay in settling the insurance claim and thereby for causing mental tension and physical harassment. As regard the penal interest awarded by the Learned District Forum @ 12% from 26.3.2007 till realization would be payable only in case OPs fail to pay the awarded amount within the stipulated time and as such there seems to be no justification in reducing the same. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion , we are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 29.1.2009 passed by the District Forum which is well reasoned and justified in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly the appeal, being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/-. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | | 
