Complainant Jagir Singh has filed the present complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short The Act) for issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite party to make the payment of  insurance claim amounting to Rs.3,63,479/-. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony alongwith Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a vehicle Tyota Innova G1 bearing registration No.PB-08-BK-8100 from its previous owner on 19.9.2016 and thereafter he in order to get transferred the said vehicle in his name  applied and deposited the requisite fee with the District Transport Authority on 9.11.2016. The vehicle in question met with an accident on 20.11.2016 and he approached to the opposite parties and requested them to get the vehicle in question repaired. They allured him that he has to get repaired the vehicle at his own and after that he can submit the bills of repair before them. He came into the allurance and talks and got repaired the vehicle from Toyota Motors Private Limited, G.T.Road, Paragpur, Jalandhar and has incurred huge amount of Rs.3,63,479/- for the repair of his vehicle. Afterward, he has submitted all the bills of repair of the vehicle before the opposite parties and requested them to make the payment of insurance claim to him but they started procrastinating the matter pending with one pretext or the other by making lame excuses. He lodged his claim before the opposite parties by submitting the entire bills alongwith other documents being demanded by the opposite parties. But, the opposite parties instead of making payment of insurance claim to him have repudiated  his claim vide letter dated 16.2.2017, by alleging that the vehicle was purchased by him on 19.9.2016 and the accident was occurred on 20.11.2016 and insurance was transferred in his name of 15.12.2016, so his claim is not tenable.  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 their counsel and filed their written version taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant purchased the vehicle on 19.9.2016 and the said vehicle met with accident on 20.11.2016. The Insurance policy of the said vehicle transferred in the name of the complainant on 15.12.2016, so there was no insurable interest existed in the name of the complainant on 20.11.2016 i.e. at the time of accident of the vehicle. Therefore, opposite party no.1 rightly repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant as per terms and conditions of insurance policy. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. On merits, all other allegations/averments as made out in the complaint and specifically the prayer clause have been vehemently denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed

4.       Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW-I, along with the other documents exhibited as Ex. C1 to Ex C6 and closed the evidence.

5.        On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Karam Singh S.D.M. Oriental Insurance Company Ex.OP-W-1/A alongwith other documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence.

6.     We have carefully examined the documents/evidence produced on record (along with the scope of ‘adverse inference’ for that ignored to be produced) to adjudicate their respective ‘claims’ as pleaded forth by the present litigants in the light of the arguments as put forth by their learned counsels, while adjudicating the present complaint.

7.       We find that the insured vehicle Toyota Innova PB-08-BK-8100 was purchased on 19.09.2016 from the then owner Tarwinder Singh by the present complainant but could be/was applied for transfer Ex.C4 on 09.11.2016 only with the Dist. Transport Authority Ex.C5 and in the meantime had got badly damaged in a Road Side Accident on 20.11.2016. Incidentally, the repairs had cost Rs.3,63,479/- Ex.C3 to the complainant whereas the opposite party insurers had repudiated Ex.OP2 the related insurance claim Ex.OP1 in the absence of ‘insurable interest’ as the insurance policy had been still continuing in the previous owner’s name.

8.       The opposite party insurers have pleaded and rightly so that the current insurance law in the light of the provisions of section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act the transferee of the insured vehicle shall apply within 14 days from the ‘date of transfer’ on the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance in his favor and the insurer shall make the necessary changes for creating insurable interest of the transferee owner. But, somehow here the insurers have inadvertently taken the date of ‘sale/purchase’ transaction i.e., 19.09.2016 as the ‘date of transfer’ whereas the complainant had applied for transfer on 09.11.2016 only (with date of transfer to be later in point of time) and thus the date of accident 20.11.2016 has been within the 14 days grace-period for applying for incorporating his name in the insurance certificate and in the meantime the ‘insurance interest’ shall be available to him in law.    

9.        Thus, we find that the impugned repudiation (Ex.C6/ Ex.OP2) of the instant insurance claim at the hands of the OP insurers certainly infringes the consumer rights of the complainant all the more so at the face of their own inadvertent mistaken interpretation of the applicable governing law. Presently, we find that the OP insurers have not been able to justify the impugned ‘claim-repudiation’ and did not even attempt to settle the ‘claim’ as of ‘now’ during the ‘pendency’ of the present complaint to show/ exhibit its bonafide intentions but it chose otherwise and thus we hold it guilty of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practices’ etc.

10.       In the light of the all above, we partly accept the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP Insurers to pay the full amount of the impugned claim (under the related Policy) to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation besides Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation, otherwise the aggregate award amount shall attract interest @9% PA from the date of the present orders till actually paid.  

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

                                                                            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                   President.                                                                                                

ANNOUNCED:                                                 (Jagdeep Kaur)

January 17, 2018                                                        Member.

*MK*