Raj Kumar complainant has filed the present complaint against the titled opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short, the C.P.Act.) in which he has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay the insurance claim on account of loss suffered by him due to damaged vehicle in the accident alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of accident till its actual realization. Opposite parties be further directed to pay compensation alongwith litigation expenses on account of mental and physical harassment being suffered by him from the hands of the opposite parties, in he interest of justice.

 2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that originally one Naresh Kumar son of Kundan Lal, resident of Gill Avenue, Pathankot was the owner of the Car Maruti Swift VDI bearing registration No.PB-35-N-3160, which he got insured from the opposite party no.1 and the opposite parties have issued insurance cover note in this regard. The vehicle was fully insured for the period w.e.f. 5.2.2015 to midnight of 5.5.2015. He has further pleaded that Naresh Kumar has sold the vehicle in his favour for valuable consideration. He moved an application on 9.12.2014 alongwith documents pertaining to the transfer of the abovesaid vehicle in his name and as such the vehicle in question was transferred in his name by the District Transport Officer, Gurdaspur and the same was handed over to him. After getting transfer the vehicle in question, he also approached to the opposite party no.1 and 2 alongwith documents pertaining to the transfer of the vehicle and has handed over the photocopies of the same to the opposite party no.1 for also getting transfer the Insurance Policy in his name. The officials of the opposite party no.1 has demanded Rs.50/- in oral from him with the pretext that if he wants to change the cover note from the name of Naresh Kumar in his name, then required fee of Rs.50/- is to be paid by him and he paid it and they allured to him that the vehicle should be transferred in his name within a week and the new Insurance Policy Cover Note should be delivered at his home address. He has further pleaded that unfortunately on 16.12.2014 his son namely Kunal Sharma was driving the vehicle in question and he suddenly met with a road accident and on account of that the vehicle was badly damaged. He immediately contacted the opposite party no.1 & 2 within few minutes after the said accident and accordingly the officials of the opposite party no.1 and 2 insurance company visited the site who taken photographs of the damaged vehicle in question. Surveyor was also appointed. Moreso, D.D.R. Entry to this effect bearing no.29 was also lodged in Police Station Civil Lines Batala on 16.12.2014. Thereafter he has furnished all the particulars in this respect before the opposite party no.1 & 2 for getting Insurance Claim of his damaged vehicle.  His son was having a valid Driving License at that point of time which was also submitted before the opposite party no.1 & 2 on their demand. He repaired his damaged vehicle and spent lot of money on it. Thereafter he has made number of visits to the office of the opposite party no.1 & 2 for getting Insurance claim but his claim has been repudiated as he is not owner of the vehicle in question.  This fact is totally wrong as he has got transferred the vehicle in question in his name prior to the accident and even he has also applied for getting the insurance in his name from the opposite parties.  Due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties, he has suffered great mental agony and he has suffered mental as well as physical harassment from the hands of the opposite parties. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.         Upon notice, the opposite party insurer appeared through its counsel and filed its written version taking the preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as the complainant has filed this complaint against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and Motor vehicle Act, therefore the opposite party cannot be held liable to pay any insurable benefit in respect to alleged vehicle Car Maruti Swift VDI and the complaint is without any cause of action, hence liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as the complainant has filed this complaint against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and Motor vehicle Act, therefore the opposite party cannot be held liable to pay any insurable benefit in respect to alleged vehicle Car Maruti Swift VDI bearing no.PB-35N-3160 bearing Chassis No.695734 and Engine  No.1600949 from the opposite party no.1 vide Policy No.401500/31/14/6100000890 valid from 6.5.2014 to 5.5.2015 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. At the time of getting the insurance Naresh Kumar son of Kundan Lal, resident of Friends Colony, Gali No.1, Sundar Nagar, Pathankot was the registered owner of the vehicle Car Maruit Swift VDI bearing No.PB-35N-3160. As per admission of the complainant Mr.Naresh Kumar has sold the above mentioned vehicle to the complainant for valuable consideration and Registration Certificate of vehicle Car Maruti Swift VDI bearing No.PB-35N-3160 was transferred in the name of complainant Raj Kumar son of Om Parkash by the D.T.O. Gurdaspur. From the facts mentioned above it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Sh.Naresh Kumar insured has sold the vehicle Car Maruti Swift VDI to Raj Kumar complainant on 9.12.2014, but the insurance policy had not been got transferred in the name of Raj Kumar purchaser in the record of opposite parties and hence the policy has lapsed on account of sale of the vehicle.  At the time of alleged accident insured has no insurable interest in vehicle Car Maruti Swift VDI. The complainant has falsely concocted a story to gain unlawfully from the opposite party. There is no privity of contract between the insurance company/opposite party and the complainant. The complainant Raj Kumar and insured Naresh Kumar have no insurable interest against the opposite party. So Naresh Kumar insured has breached the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, the complainant has miserably failed to prove insurable interest in vehicle Car Maruti Swift VDI on the date of alleged accident, so this complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground.  It was incorrect that unfortunately on 16.12.2014, the son of the complainant namely Kunal Sharma was driving the vehicle in question and he suddenly met with a road accident and on account of that the vehicle was badly damaged. The complainant immediately contacted the opposite parties no.1 and 2 within few minutes after the said accident and accordingly the officials of the opposite party no.1 and 2 visited the site who took photographs of the damaged vehicle in question. Even surveyor was also appointed. Moreso, D.D.R. entry to this effect bearing No.29 was also lodged in Police Station Civil Lines Batala on 16.12.2014. Actually, after intimation by the complainant the opposite party deputed Ashwani Mittal Surveyor and Loss Assessor Jalandhar Road Batala who assess the loss of Rs.16,331/- vide its report dated 26.01.2015. The opposite party written three letters to the complainant for submitting required documents and clarification in respect to violation of policy conditions, but the complainant did not do this. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.         Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CI, along with the other documents exhibited as Ex. C2 to Ex.C15 and closed the evidence.

5.         On the other hand, Sh.Parveen Chadda Branch Manager NIC tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1, alongwith the other documents Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP8 and closed the evidence.

6.      We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides on the points of law and have also thoroughly examined the records with requisite care & caution on the points of fact, as placed before us. We find that the OP insurers disallowed the impugned Car Accident Insurance Claim vides repudiation letter Ex.C10/Ex.OP3 dated 05.02.2015 for of the reasons addressed therein at Sr. No. 1 and 3 reading as: (1) Inspite of letters/reminders sent to you, you have not complied with the required papers/documents and (3) We are closing your claim-file, on account of the following reason:- Violation of Policy Conditions. The OP insurers have however failed to produce any cogent evidence of having issued letters/reminders etc to the complainant for papers/documents as alleged above at Sr No. 1.

7.        Regarding the ‘violation of Policy conditions’ as at Sr. No. 3 above, the OP insurers have alleged in the ‘written reply’ and also in the Affidavit Ex.OP1 that at the time of the Car accident on 16.12.2014 the complainant had no insurable interest in the Car purchased from the first insured owner Naresh Kumar and transferred in his name by the DTO office on 09.12.2014. We find that the purchased Car was admittedly transferred/registered in the complainant’s name on 08.12.2014 vide Ex.C6/Ex.OP7 and as such on the date of accident i.e., on 16.12.2014 the Car was in the name of the complainant Raj Kumar whereas the related Car Insurance was still un-transferred and was in the name of the Seller/Insured.  As per the settled law and the IRDA guidelines on the subject matter the ‘transferee is mandatorily desired to intimate/ request the insurers for ‘transfer of the car insurance’ in his name within 14 days of the effected date of the Car Registration transfer so as to revive his insurable interest from that very date. Going by that Rule of law the complainant was entitled to intimate the OP Insurers for the insurance transfer from 09.12 2014 to (up to) 22.12.2014 to revive his insurable interest with effect from 09.12.2014 but somehow in the meantime the accident occurred on 16.12.2014 i.e., within the grace period of 14 days and thus the Policy was duly and validly invoked to claim the Repair Expenses Reimbursement as per the terms of the related Policy. Moreover, we find that the impugned repudiation has been arbitrarily based upon the non-compliance and non-supply of the non-existent documents coupled with the false alibi of absence of insurable interest etc. Even the OP’s own reply dated 16.03.2015 under the RTI Act’ 2005 spells out the above proposition of 14 days grace period to apply for insurance transfer. And, if the insurance policy gets invoked (through accident) within the grace period the applicable claim filed shall be deemed to have the requisite insurable interest since a pre-invoked policy shall no longer be open to ‘transferability’. With the fast moving consumer scenario, it is desired of the claim settling authorities to prefer the ‘human’ approach to the obsolete ‘mechanical’ one in order to stay tuned to the fast ‘changes’ as envisaged by the IRDA controller. We finally observe that in the above backdrop even the superior courts’ judgments as cited by the learned counsel of the OP insurers shall not be of much help to him since these resolve the issues pertaining to ‘non-intimation’ to the insurers even after the mandatorily allowed grace period of 14 days. We hold the OP insurers guilty of infringement of complainant’s consumer rights through ‘unfair trade practice’ amounting to ‘deficiency in service’ and that makes them liable to an adverse award under the Act.

 8.      In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP insurers to settle and pay the impugned Claim in question in terms of the related Policy  as per the surveyor report Ex OP4 i.e. Rs..16,331/- to the complainant besides to pay him Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the full awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA form the date of filing of the complaint till actual orders.  

9.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

                                                                                     (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                             President   

Announced:                                                                  (Jagdeep Kaur)

November 06, 2015                                                            Member

*MK*