The present complaint was filed by the titled complainant(s) against the titled insurers upon rejection/non-receipt of his Theft-Loss Insurance-Claim filed with the OP insurers pertaining to his comprehensively insured (IDV Rs.4.0 Lac) Chevrolet Tavera Vehicle RC # PB-01-8924 stolen on the night of 26.07.2015 having parked at Bijli Ground, Sujanpur.

2.       The complainant No.1 (Ashok Kumar) had previously owned the stolen vehicle and had sold it to complainant No. 2 (Som Raj - who runs one Tour & Travel Business at Pathankot) for a consideration of Rs.4,51,820/- vide Sale Agreement dated 10.07.2014. The vendor Ashok Kumar had also executed a Special Power of Attorney on 12.07.2014 favoring the vendee Som Raj. However, the vehicle's ownership upon the R.C. (Registration Certificate) could not be transferred as at that point of time there had been one recorded Loan Lien over the vehicle that stood repaid, in full, at the time of filing of the present complaint.

3.       The comprehensively insured vehicle was somehow stolen on the night of 26.07.2015 during the validity (17.06.2015 to 16.06.2016) of the related insurance policy and impugned theft-claim was duly filed with the OP insurers along with the then available documents and the other requisite papers were also filed as & when could be procured by the complainants. The complainants have been in regular follow-up of their 'theft-claim' with the OP insurers who have been delaying the claim-resolve on one pretext or the other and finally refused it verbally to the complainant No.2 who had approached them for follow-up etc and thus prompted the present complaint seeking directives to the OP Insurers to settle claim at the insured IDV @ Rs.4.0 Lac along with interest @ 18% PA besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation, in the interest of justice.

4.       In order to support prosecution of their complaint its allegations and contents etc., the complainants have filed along with their affidavits Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 along with other exhibited evidence/documents as: Ex.C3 (the OP letter requisitioning additional papers); Ex.C4 (Newspaper cutting-vehicle-theft report); Ex.C5 (Copy of Special Power of Attorney); Ex.C6 (Copy of Sale Agreement); Ex.C7 (Copy - Untraced Report); Ex.C8 (Copy Policy Cover Note); Ex.C9 (Copy of Chalan); Ex.C10 (Copy CJM Orders-Untraced Report); Ex.C11 (Copy of Vehicle's R.C.); Ex.C12 (Copy of FIR).        

5.       The titled Opposite Party Insurers (the OP insurers), in response to the commission’s notice/summons appeared through their common counsel who filed their written reply stating therein preliminary as well as other objections (on merits) as: Firstly, the OP plead absence of cause of action and locus-standee with the complainants and as such do not fall within the definition of 'consumer' as provided under the Consumer Protection Act to be eligible to file the present complaint. Further, there's no deficiency in service on their part as the claim has been rightly repudiated due to non-existence of insurable interest with the Complainant No.1 as at the time of alleged theft of the vehicle on 24.05.2017 when the vehicle stood sold to complainant No.2 as on 10.07.2014 but the ownership was not transferred and even no intimation was provided to the OP insurers as desired under Motor Vehicles Act.     Next, the complainant No.2 in the absence of any contract with the insurers had never been a consumer. On the date of insurance, the insured vehicle had been in the name of Ashok Kumar and no change of name (in the insurance policy) was ever applied for and as such on 26.07.2015 the date of alleged-theft there was no insurance-contract with Complainant No.2 Som Raj. Further, there's never been any deficiency in service on their part and upon receipt of the claim the OP insurers appointed the Surveyor who investigated the alleged theft of the vehicle and submitted his report.  And, the claim has been rightly repudiated in the absence of requisite ownership/insurable interest/insurance contract.

6.       On merits, also the OP insurers have been denying and/or side-lining the contents of the complaint but all the time sticking to their one-point single stand that at the time of the alleged theft there had been no insurance contract with Som Raj Complainant No.2, the present owner as the related insurance policy has been till then, in the name of the previous owner Ashok Kumar Complainant No.1 who having sold the vehicle on 10.07.2014 was left with no insurable interest in the vehicle as on 26.07.2015 the date of alleged theft; and as such the impugned theft-claim has been rightly repudiated as repeatedly advised/explained to both the complainants who are thus not entitled to the impugned theft-claim. Finally, the OP have reasserted correctness of repudiation at their end and have put forth the policy's terms and conditions seeking dismissal of the complaint with costs. In support of the pleadings opposite party has relied upon affidavit of Sh.Parveen  Chadha Ex.OP-1, affidavit of Sarv Daman Bhalla Ex.OP-2 alongwith copies of relevant documents Ex.OP-3 to Ex.OP-23.             

7.       We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides, on points of law, and have also thoroughly examined the records with requisite care and caution on the points of fact, as placed before us. We have been also inclined to examine the inference it’s ‘scope n spread’ on account of some documents ignored to be produced/not-produced, during the course of the present proceedings.

8.       We observe that the prime-point of contention between the herein litigants has been on the subject-matter/issue of absence of insurable interest with the complainant1 who had already sold-out the vehicle, in question, as at the date of the alleged theft and further absence of insurance-contract with the complainant No.2 Som Raj who had somehow, not got the related insurance policy transferred to his name as at the date of alleged theft.

9.       However, we find that the impugned theft-claim could have been paid for the same logic/reasoning for which the same was refused/ repudiated as at present both the complainants have jointly and simultaneously filed the present complaint. Thus, the OP insurers had been liable to pay the impugned claim to the complainant No.2 who had held a valid S.P.A (Special Power of Attorney) in his favor as executed by the complainant No.1 and complainant no.1 has also already deposed the same in his sworn affidavit ExC1( The deponent has no objection if the payment of insured amount is made to his power of attorney i.e. complainant no.2).

10.     We observe that the OP insurers have even opted out of their statutory duty as well as its obligatory courtesy to 'up-date/respond' to the prescribed guidelines while resolving an insurance-claim of the aggrieved complainant presently culminating into an impugned-claim. We also observe that the theft-claim warrants the full total-loss compensation to the insured vehicle.  

11.     We are of the considered opinion at the face of the evidenced-facts as available on the records that there’s have been an unfair display of its superior/dominant position by the OP Insurer in blacking-out the 'transparency' of claim-status from the insured and that clearly amounted to deficiency in service on the OP insurer's part and as such the impugned ‘repudiation’ on the OP insurer's part of the theft-incident insurance-claim, in question, had been unwarranted, arbitrary and unfair; neither in accordance with the provisions of the statutory law nor in conformity with the sanctity of natural justice, equity and good conscience. Further, it has violated with impunity the preferred consumer rights of the insured complainants causing them much physical harassment, mental agony and financial loss. Thus, we hold the OP insurers guilty of statutory misconduct amounting to ‘unfair trade practices/deficiency in service’ and thus liable to an adverse award under the provisions of the governing statute.         

12.     In the light of the all above, we order the opposite party insurers to pay the impugned claim @ of the policy's full IDV of Rs.4.0 Lac (with compulsory deductions strictly and fairly in terms of the policy) with interest @ 6% PA from the date of claim (till paid in full) besides Rs.10,000/- in lump sum as cost cum compensation to the complainant no.2 (in view of affidavit of complainant no.1 ExC1) within 45 days of receipt of the  certified copy of these orders.

13.      The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

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

 (Naveen Puri)

                                                                President.

ANNOUNCED:                                    (R.S.Sukhija)

JULY 14, 2022.                                          Member.

YP.