Complainant Parveen Lata through the present complaint has sought the necessary directions to the opposite parties to make the payment Rs.4,80,000/- i.e. total loss qua her claim immediately in terms of the Insurance Policy alongiwth interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident of the vehicle till actual realization. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical harassment alongwith Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that she purchased a car make Swift Dzire bearing registration No.PB-06-A-D-0517 bears Engine No.D13A5139155 and Chassis No.MA3FSEB1S00495257 from Vikas Bhalla son of Sh.Davinder Bhalla on 6.03.2017 for  Rs.5,50,000/-.She paid Rs.1,10,000/- in cash and remaining amount of Rs.4,40,000/- has been financed by her from opposite party no.2. The abovesaid vehicle was fully insured with opposite party no.1 vide policy No.GG 31 401602051898 valid from 20.07.2016 to 19.07.2017.She also paid Rs.20,000/- to the opposite party no.2 for the transfer to R.C. and insurance in his name from original owner Sh.Vikas Bhalla in the presence of Sh.Vikas Bhalla. All of sudden on 22.04.2017, at about 11.40 P.M. the vehicle was struck with a truck bearing No.PB-08-AX-9982 about 1 kms behind from Damtal near hotel K-Hill and the vehicle was totally damaged. The occupants of the vehicle including its driver Pawan Kumar son of Nanak Chand suffered injuries in this accident and matter was reported to the Police of P.S.Indora Distt.Kangra (HP) and the police registered FIR No.0107 dated 23.04.2017 U/s.279/337 IPC Information in this regard was also given to the opposite parties but they did not depute any Surveyor for assessing the loss despite repeated requests by him.  He has further pleaded that Pawan Kumar driver was holding a valid driving license issued by the competent authority. She was not plying the vehicle against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy or in contravention of insurance policy rules nor there any intentional or willful delay on her part in reporting the matter to opposite parties. Thereafter, she approached the opposite party no.1 and submitted claim for payment but the opposite party no.1 did not listen to her on the ground that the R.C. as well as insurance of the vehicle was not transferred in her name at the time of accident. Although, she had paid Rs.20,000/- to the opposite party no.2 for transferring of the RC and insurance of the vehicle and even the same was transferred in her name on 04.04.2017. As such there is no lapse or fault on his part.  Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.         Upon notice, the opposite party no.1 appeared and filed its written version through its counsel, taking the preliminary objection that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable; the complaint is absolutely false, frivolous and no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the complainant against the opposite party to file the present complaint and hence, the complaint under reply is an abuse of the process of law and as such the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. On merits, it was submitted that if the complainant succeeded to prove as purchaser of car make swift Dzire bearing registration no.PB-06-AD-0517 bears engine no.D13A5139155 and Chassis no.MA3FSEB IS00495257 on 06.03.2017, he had no insurable interest and the opposite party no.1 cannot be burdened with any liability. As per pleadings of the complaint the vehicle Swift Dzire bearing registration no.PB-06-AD-0517 is yet not transferred in the name of complainant and as per proviso GR-17 of India Motor Tariff, it is a mandatory duty cast upon a purchaser, to send intimation to the insurance company, qua purchase of a car, so that insurable interest can be transferred in the name of the purchaser. The said provision reads thus:- “ on transfer of ownership, the liability only cover, either under a liability only policy or under a package policy, is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred  with effect from the date of transfer. The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy so that the insurer may make the necessary changes in his record and issue fresh certificate of insurance”. But in this complaint no transfer of vehicle got effected and no intimation is given to the insurance company. Moreover there is no privty of contract between the complainant and the opposite party no.1 insurance company. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.     Upon notice, the opposite party no.2 appeared and filed its written version through its counsel, taking the preliminary objection that the complaint is false, vexatious and filed with a malafide intention with a view to harass the opposite party by misusing the process of law to avail undue advantages; the complaint is neither maintainable under law nor upon facts, and the same is liable to be dismissed; complainant has not come before the Hon’ble Forum with clean hands; the present complaint is premature one, so no cause of action has arose against the opposite party no.2 and the complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Section 2 (d) of the consumer. On merits, it was denied that the complainant had paid Rs.20,000/- to the opposite party for transfer of the RC and insurance. The opposite party no.2 is not liable to pay claim of the insurance policy as it is responsibility of the complainant to get the insurance transfer from the name of said Vikas Bhalla. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5.      Complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit ExCW1/A and of Sh.Vikas Bhalla Ex.CW-2/A  along with other documents exhibited as Ex.C1 to Ex C10 and closed the evidence.

6.    Counsel for the opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of  Sh.Parveen Chadha Branch Manager Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence.

7.      Counsel for the opposite party no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Satish Kumar son of Vishwanath, Retainer Advocate Ex.OP-2/A, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2/1 and Ex.OP-2/2 and closed the evidence.

8.        We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels for their respective clients along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for some documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute prompted at the impugned ‘repudiation’ of the total-loss accident claim pertaining to the insured ‘Maruti Swift Dzire Tour’ LMV Car alleging absence of ‘insurable-interest’ of the complainant who had neither the Car’s R.C. (i.e., ownership) nor its insurance transferred in her name (transferred from the seller/owner) as on the date (time) of accident on 22.04.2017. Further, we find here that neither the OP1 insurers nor the OP2 financers have produced any cogent evidence/evidentiary document in support of their respective rebuttals to the complainant’s claim and in its absence the contents of affidavits (Ex.OP1/1 & Ex.OP2/A) amount to bald statements, only. The other two documents (Ex.OP2/1; Ex.OP2/2) do prove the factum of loan advanced but not the issues of ‘insurable interest’ and ‘delay’ in registration of the requisite with the appropriate authorities.

9.       On the other hand, we find that the complainant besides his self-deposed affidavit (Ex.Cw1/A) and that of the previous owner (Ex.Cw2/A) has also produced (Ex.C2 to Ex.C10) the supporting documents to substantiate his complaint contented charges/allegations/claims etc. Whereas, the o. n. p. (onus of proof) to the alleged absence of complainant’s ‘insurable-interest’ laid heavily upon the OP1 insurers who however preferred to rely upon the available records and have been proved wrong as to their claim of non-registration of Car in complainant’s name whereas the vehicle’s RC (Ex.C1) and affidavit (Ex.Cw2/A) have satisfactorily proved that the car was registered in the complainant’s name much before 22.04.2017 the date of accident. Further, we find that the notice to the OP1 insurers of change of ownership was delayed by 3-4 days (in the light of 14 days grace period from 04.04.2017, the date of renewed registration) taken hypothetically and for which we find the OP2 financer was responsible for the same after having accepted Rs.20,000/- for the services effecting the requisite transfer. Keeping in view the extant guidelines of Insurance Regulatory Authority and the prevailing custom and practice in the field of vehicle-insurance, we are of the considered opinion that mere delay in getting insurance policy transferred by the complainant in his name cannot be made as a ground for rejecting his otherwise a valid and genuine insurance claim and as such the impugned ‘repudiation’ being not maintainable in the eyes of law is hereby set-aside. Moreover, in this case it is evident that the vehicle is transferred in the name of complainant w.e.f 4/4-2017 and the accident was occurred on 22/4/2017. So otherwise also if Sec 157(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act as amended in 1994 is applied then it has to be considered that the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have transferred in favor of the transferee i.e. the complainant w.e.f the date of transfer i.e. 4/4/2017 itself. Hence there is no iota of doubt that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.

10.     The analytic evaluation of the available evidence indicates of an arbitrary and hasty ‘repudiation’ since the allegation could not be cogently proved through some reliable and legally acceptable evidence. Somehow, we find that the instant repudiation rakes up the OP1 insurers to an adverse statutory award under the applicable statute. Further, in the absence of some cogent or other evidence the ‘additional-pleas’ of other violations of the M V Act do not hold water and are liable to be dismissed as ‘bald’ statements, only.

11.     In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled OP1 insurers to pay the impugned claim @ the full IDV of the insured vehicle in conformity to the terms of the applicable insurance Policy to the present complainant besides to pay him Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as cost of present litigation within 30 days of receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of filing of this complaint till actual payment.   

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

                                                                         (Naveen Puri)

                                                                              President.      

ANNOUNCED:                                                         (Jagdeep Kaur)

July, 20 2018.                                                          Member

*MK*