The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the concept of insurable interest in a vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the transfer procedures for insurance policies as per G.R. 17 of India Motor Tariff.

Mr. Justice K.C. Gupta, President—This appeal has been directed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 against order dated 5.5.2005 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) whereby the complaint of Sh. Manjit Pal Singh (respondent No. 1 in the present appeal) was accepted and the appellants were directed to pay claim to respondent No. 1, as per terms and conditions of the policy, with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 26.3.2004, the date of repudiation of claim, till the payment is made. Costs of Rs. 550 was also awarded.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that respondent No. 1 Sh. Manjit Pal Singh (complainant) purchased second hand Maruti Car bearing registration No. HR 06 G1081M Model 2000 from Sh. Bharat Bhushan (respondent No. 2) for a sum of Rs. 1,33,500 on 24.9.2003 vide receipt Annexure C-1. Respondent No. 2 handed over the papers to respondent No. 1 after receiving the consideration and applied for “No Objection Certificate” to the Registering Authority, Panipat and further executed required documents for transferring the said vehicle in favour of Sh. Manjit Pal Singh. Sh. Bharat Bhushan, respondent No. 2 also gave insurance policy, which was valid up to 4.5.2004. The Registering Authority, Panipat issued `No Objection Certificate’ for transferring the said vehicle in the name of respondent No. 1, in favour of Registering Authority, Mohali on 3.10.2003. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 submitted papers as required for transferring the vehicle in his name vide Diary No. 9 dated 23.12.2003 and also paid road tax amounting to Rs. 1,900 to the Registering Authority, Mohali.

3. It was next averred that on 15.1.2004, somebody committed theft of the car from the parking of Rose Garden, Sector 16, Chandigarh. Respondent No. 1 reported the matter to the police. First Information Report No. 20 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was registered with Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh. The police, however, could not trace the car and finally gave untraced report on 3.3.2003. The copy of the same is Annexure C-5.

4. It was further averred that respondent No. 1 lodged a claim with the New India Assurance Company Limited, Panipat seeking reimbursement of the loss in terms of the policy but the appellants rejected his claim vide letter dated 26.3.2004 on the ground that there was no insurable interest of respondent No. 1 on the date of loss. The copy of the repudiation letter is Annexure C-6.

5. It was next averred that the repudiation of the claim by the appellants was illegal in law. The respondent No. 1 had become the owner before the loss of vehicle and respondent No. 2 had severed his relations qua the vehicle after the issuance of ‘No Objection Certificate’ by the Registering Authority, Panipat dated 3.10.2003 and it could not be said that the respondent No. 1 did not have any insurable interest on the date of loss of the vehicle.

6. With these allegations, he prayed reimbursement of the loss to the extent of Rs. 1,33,000 being the value of the car. Besides it, he claimed Rs. 50,000 as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and further Rs. 10,000 as litigation expenses along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date the amount became due till its actual payment.

7. The appellants contested the complaint and filed a written reply. They took certain preliminary objections; that the respondent No. 1 was not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as they had never issued any insurance policy in favour of respondent No. 1 and there was no contract or relationship between them and the respondent No. 1; that the respondent No. 1 had no insurable interest in the vehicle and, as such, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. They further stated that respondent No. 1 after having purchased the vehicle never sent any intimation, nor applied for