The gist of the case is as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant No.1 is the RC owner of the Toyota Qualis Van No. KL – 12- B/6788,2003 Model. The vehicle was insured with the opposite party as per policy No.760604/31/05/06151 for a period from 23.1.2006 to 22.1.07 for total premium of Rs.14,815/-. The market value of the vehicle was shown as 3,75,000/- instead of Rs.6,00,000/- as on 23.1.2006 to reduce the premium. On 15.8.2006, the 2nd complainant decided to purchase the vehicle from the 1st complainant. The 1st complainant approached the opposite party and the opposite party advised the 1st complainant to transfer the RC and insurance within 30 days of the execution of sale agreement, on the opposite parties assurance, sale agreement was executed between the complainants on 16.8.2006 and possession of vehicle was given to the 2nd complainant keeping the ownership and insurable interest with the 1st complainant. On 8.9.2006, the 1st complainant cleared the due of HP on the vehicle to the State Bank of Travancore and obtained clearance certificate. 9.9.2006 was second Saturday and 10.9.2006 was Sunday. So the 1st complainant could not take any step to attest the transfer of vehicle in the RTO and the policy of insurance with opposite party. The vehicle was found stolen on 11.6.2006 at about 2.35 AM from the porch of the 2nd complainant. The matter was intimated to the opposite party over phone and the Kambalakkad Police has charged the crime as crime No. 157/06. A claim for the insurance amount was preferred to the opposite party with all necessary documents. But the opposite party has repudiated the claim without making any enquiry. This is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. On 11.6.06 1st complainant was the RC owner of the Vehicle and has not passed his insurable interest in the vehicle. The second complainant is arrayed as a party to state the bonafide of the case and he has no objection to pay the amount to the 1st complainant, so the complainant prays for an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.3,75,000/- which is shown as the market value of the vehicle, and a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party has filed version admitting the policy. The opposite party state that at the time of the alleged incident, the 2nd complainant was in possession of the vehicle and he was the agreement owner of the vehicle. The vehicle was allegedly stolen from the custody of 2nd complainant with whom the opposite party has no privity of contract. The 1st complainant had no insurable interest on the vehicle as on the date of theft. So the opposite party is not liable to pay the insurance amount, There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and hence the opposite party prays for an order dismissing the complaint. The complainant was examined as PW1. Ext. A1 to Ext. A10 were marked on the side of the complainant. The opposite party was examined as OPW1 and documents were marked as Ext. B1 to Ext. B4 on the part of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 3. The points to be considered are as follows:<br /> <br /> 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 2) Whether the complainant s are entitled for any relief.<br /> <br /> 4. Point No.1: The opposite party's sole contention is that the 1st complainant has no insurable interest over the vehicle at the date of theft. In this case,RC is in the name of policy holder. There is an agreement of sale between 1st complainant and 2nd complainant. The possession is transfered to the 2nd complainant. Only the RC owner can insure a vehicle. Hence agreement of sale or even sale deed is not sufficient for insuring a vehicle. The contention of opposite party that the 1st complainant has no insurable interest, if taken as valid, nobody is having an insurable interest over the vehicle. This is not possible. The very similer facts are discussed in a case, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sharawan Bhatia (2008 (2) CPR). Here the Hon. National Commission has ruled infavour of the complainant. As in that case, here also, opposite parties has taken a stand not to pay the 1st complainant, the insured. The company refuses to pay insured amount to the 2nd complainant also. It would be just and proper, if the company chooses to pay any of these persons. Having a valid policy and refusing the claim is a deficiency on the part of the opposite party. So, the Point No.1 is decided against the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 5. Point No.2: As it is found that the refusal of opposite party to pay the claim is deficiency in service, the 1st complainant is entitled for the payment of insurance claim. The 1st complainant is the policy holder and RC owner of the vehicle. The 1st complainant is also entitled for reasonable compensation.<br /> <br /> Hence, the opposite party is directed to pay the 1st complainant the insurance claim of Rs.3,75,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand only) with 10% interest from the date of complaint. The opposite party is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) to the 1st complainant. The opposite party has to comply with the order within 30 days of this order.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 24th September, 2008.<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> MEMBER: I Sd/-<br /> /True copy/ MEMBER II Sd/-<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> A P P E N D I X:<br /> Witness examined for complainant:<br /> PW1 K.P. Pradeep Kumar, Complainant <br /> Witness examined for opposite parties<br /> OPW1 Raghavan Manager<br /> Exhibits marked for complainant:<br /> A1 Copy of certificate of registration<br /> A2 Copy of Insurance policy<br /> A3 Copy of agreement between the complainants<br /> A4 Series Letter Dt. 8.9.2006, Notice of termination of an <br /> agreement of Hire- purchase<br /> Contd.....5)<br /> 5<br /> A5 Letter of subrogation<br /> A6 Copy of F.I.R.<br /> A7 Copy of the final report<br /> A9 Letter Dt.27.9.2006<br /> A10 Copy of the claim repudiation report<br /> Exhibits marked for opposite parties:<br /> B1 Series Insurance policy Dt. 23.1.2006<br /> B2 Letter Dt. 27.9.2006<br /> B3 Motor claim form<br /> B4 Letter Dt. 15.11.2007<br />