PRESIDENT 

1)        The Complainants by this complaint have prayed that the Opposite Party be directed to pay Rs.2,90,000/- to the Complainant No.2 with interest @ 21% on the said amount from January, 2001 till the realization of the said amount.  The Complainants have also prayed compensation of Rs.2 Lacs for causing loss, inconvenience, mental agony, harassment for not complying the terms and conditions of the policy.

2)        According to the Complainants the Complainant No.2 had purchased new car Tata Indigo in the year 2007 having Registration No.MH-04-CZ-2926 in his name.  The Complainant No.2 insured the said car under Private Car Package Policy floated by the Opposite Party by paying essential premium under the said policy for the period 29/05/2010 to 28/05/2011.  The estimated total value after depreciation was appreciated Rs.2,90,000/-.  The copy of policy schedule-cum-certificate of insurance issued by the Opposite Party is at Exh.‘A’.  It is submitted that the Complainant No.2 sold the aforesaid car to the Complainant No.1 on or about 25/07/2010 and handed over the relevant papers to the Complainant No.1.  It is alleged that the Complainant No.1 thereafter, applied for transfer of the registration of the vehicle in question to RTO, Mumbai in the month of August, 2011.  The copy of the receipt issued by RTO, Mumbai is at Exh.‘B’ colly.  As per the documents filed at Exh.‘B’ colly. the vehicle in question was transferred in the name of Complainant No.1 by the RTO Authority. 

3)        According to the Complainants, on 25/01/2011 the Complainant No.1 had parked the vehicle in question in front of his house.  On next day i.e. 26/01/2011 the husband of Complainant No.1 went to clean the said vehicle but he found that it was not at the parking lot.  It is submitted that after due and diligent search the vehicle in question could not be traced.  The Complainant No.1 therefore, on the same day lodged the police complaint at Sakinaka Police Station regarding theft of her vehicle.  The Complainants alleged that they will refer and rely upon FIR and Panchanama as and when produced.  It is submitted that the Complainant No.1 at the same time also intimated the Opposite Party and submitted the claim form on 23/02/2011.  It is alleged that in pursuance to the same the Opposite Party deputed one Yogesh Associates, General Insurance Investigation Services, to investigate the claim submitted for theft of the vehicle in question.  It is submitted that the said investigation services called upon the Complainant No.1 to submit relevant documents such as claim form, FIR, Insurance Certificate, Original R.C. Book, Set of Keys, etc. which the Complainant No.1 submitted on 23/02/2011.  The copy of the letter issued by Investigation Services and Claim Form acknowledged by the Opposite Party are marked as Exh.‘C’ colly.  

4)        According to the Complainants, on 19/07/2011 the Complainant No.1 received letter from Opposite Party stating  that  the  claim  for theft of vehicle under the policy issued by the Opposite Party stood repudiated as on the date of the loss, the policy was not in her name.  The copy of the letter issued by the Opposite Party dtd.19/07/2011 is marked as Exh.‘D’.  

5)        It is the case of the Complainants that the Complainant No.1 brought the said fact to the knowledge of the Complainant No.2 being the insured and the Complainant No.2 therefore, submitted the Motor Claim Form to the Opposite Party because since on the date of theft the vehicle in question was insured in the name of Complainant No.2 as per the policy document. It is submitted that the policy taken by the Complainant No.2 was never cancelled by the Opposite Party and he was having insurable interest in the vehicle therefore, the Opposite Party was under obligation to indemnify the loss of the vehicle which had taken place due to theft.  It is alleged that the Opposite Party refused to accept the said Motor Claim Form submitted to the Opposite Party therefore, the Complainant No.2 was compelled to send the same by courier which was duly received and acknowledged by the Opposite Party on 06/09/2011.  The copies of the said documents i.e. the letter of the Complainant No.2 claim form are marked as Exh.‘E’ colly.  According to the Complainants the Opposite Party by its letter dtd.12/09/2011 rejected the claim submitted by Complainant No.2 holding that the Complainant No.2 had sold his vehicle to Complainant No.1 on 24/07/2010 and the policy was not transferred in the name of Complainant No.1 and as the registered owner of the vehicle in question is/was the Complainant No.1 on the date of theft and the Complainant No.2 does not have any insurable interest in the said vehicle.  The copy of the letter issued by Opposite Party dtd.12/09/2011 is at Exh.‘F’.

6)        According to the Complainants the Opposite Party had committed gross error by repudiating the claim of both Complainants.  It is submitted that the vehicle in question insured in the name of Complainant No.2 as per the policy documents and the policy was never cancelled by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party was therefore, under obligation to indemnify the loss of the vehicle which had taken place due to theft of the vehicle to the Complainant No.2.  It is submitted that the Opposite Party was not justified in denying the claim of the Complainant No.2 and it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. The Complainants submitted that they had therefore, suffered harassment and mental agony. It is therefore, prayed that the reliefs claimed in para 1 of this order may be allowed against Opposite Party. 

7)        The Opposite Party initially remained absent after service of notice, hence, matter proceeded against the Opposite Party, however, thereafter the Opposite Party appeared through Adv. Smt. Kalpana Trivedi.  The Complainants have filed affidavit in support of the complaint.  The Complainants and the Opposite Party filed their written arguments.  We heard the oral arguments of the Ld.Advocate Shri. Umesh Desai for the Complainants and Smt. Kalpana Trivedi for the Opposite Party.

8)        While considering the claim made in the complaint by the Complainants and by considering the written statement arguments filed by the Opposite Party, it appears that the Opposite Party has admitted that the Complainant No.2 had obtained Private Car Package Policy for the period 29/05/2010 to 28/10/2011 for Tata Indigo Car bearing Registration No.MH-04-CZ-2926 from the Opposite Party.  It is also not disputed by the Opposite Party that the Complainant No.2 sold the said vehicle to the Complainant No.1 on 25/07/2010.  It is contended that however, the said policy was not transferred in the name of Complainant No.1 in spite of the said car was sold and transferred in the name of Complainant No.1 in RTO record.  It is also admitted by the Opposite Party that on 26/01/2011 the husband of the Complainant No.1 found that the vehicle in question was missing from the place where it was parked and after research it could not be trace out and the Complainant No.1 lodged police complaint on the same day and the same was intimated to the Opposite Party on 23/02/2011.  It is the contention of the Opposite Party that as the policy issued by the Opposite Party was not transferred in the name of Complainant No.1 in spite of the said vehicle was transferred in the name of Complainant No.1 in RC Book and therefore, the Complainant No.1 has no insurable interest.  It is also the contention of the Opposite Party that the Opposite Party repudiated the claim lodged by the Complainant No.2 as per the terms and conditions of the policy and as the vehicle was transferred in the name of the Complainant No.1 and the Complainant No.1 was not owner of the stolen vehicle in question on the date of theft the Opposite Party has rightly repudiated the claim of Complainant No.2 vide letter dtd.12/09/2011.  In this context the Advocate for the Complainants in his argument relied the observations of the Hon’ble State Commission Rajasthan in Appeal No.2134/2008 filed between the parties National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Shri. Bilal Mohammad, in the judgement dtd.16/04/2009.    We have gone through the observations in the said case  and  the facts of the said case, it appears that the Hon’ble Rajasthan State Commission on the similar facts maintained the order passed by the District Forum, Udaipur in Complaint No.42/2004.  In the said case the Hon’ble State Commission held that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Govndan V/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999 S.C. 1398 and the decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Bonwarilal Agarwalla V/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (IV (2005) CPJ 110 (NC)) though the vehicle in question was sold by the Complainant – Respondent No.2 to the Complainant – Respondent No.1 prior to the alleged incident of accident and the same was transferred in the name of Complainant – Respondent No.1 on 29/01/2003 in the Registration Certificate and since insurance papers were not transferred in the name of Complainant – Respondent No.1, therefore, Complainant – Respondent No.2 had insurable interest in the vehicle as the vehicle in question was insured in his name on the date of accident.  It is also held that the Appellant Insurance Company are under obligation at least to pay the amount of loss of the vehicle in question to the Complainant – Respondent No.2, the original insured person.  In the said case it also held that the Appellant Insurance Company was not justified in denying the claim of Complainant – Respondent No.2 and it amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant and the District Forum has rightly observed so.  It is further held that the Appellant Insurance Company was under legal observation to indemnify the loss of the vehicle to the Complainant – Respondent No.2 only as it was insured in his name and not to Complainant – Respondent No.1, Purchaser, who had not privity of contract with the Appellant Insurance Company, and therefore, the District Forum was right in decreeing the claim of the Complainant – Respondent No.2 holding that the Complainant – Respondent No.2 was having insurable interest in the vehicle in question.  It is further held that the findings of the District Forum in this respect are based on correct appreciation of entire materials and evidence available on record and the do not suffer from any basic infirmity or illegality or perversity.  It is also held that hence, no interference is called for with the same and the appeal filed by the Appellants deserves to be dismissed.  Considering the observations in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble State Commission, Rajasthan having identical facts of this case we are of the view that the claim made in the present complaint of total value of Rs.2,90,000/- as per the policy document at Exh.‘A’ needs to be  allowed in favour of the Complainant No.2 as  prayed  by  the  Complainants  in prayers clause (i). The Complainant have claimed interest @ 21% p.a. on the said amount from January, 2011 in our view such exorbitant interest is not required to be granted in favour of Complainant No.2. We hold that interest @ 6% p.a. on the amount of Rs.2,90,000/- from 05/09/2011 till its realization is required to be granted, as the Complainant No.2 tried to submit the Motor Claim Form to the Opposite Party which was refused to accept by the Opposite Party.  The Complainant No.2 is entitled to compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the Complainants to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.3,000/- towards this complaint from the Opposite Party.  In the result we pass the following order –

O R D E R 

i.                    Complaint No.302/2011 is partly allowed against the Opposite Party.

ii.                 The Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,90,000/-    (Rs. Two Lacs Ninety Thousand Only) to the Complainant No.2 alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from 05/09/2011 till its actual payment and Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand Only) as compensation for the mental harassment caused to the Complainants and cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three Thousand only) to the Complainant No.2.  

iii.               The Opposite Party is directed to comply the aforesaid order within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

iv.               Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.