ORDER

The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ OP under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) against the impugned order dated 18.01.2019, passed by the learned Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No.364/2018 wherein the State Commission modified the order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (‘the District Forum’) dated 02.02.2018 and directed the OP to pay 75% amount of the insured declared value of Rs.13,75,000/- i.e. Rs.10,31,250/- on non-standard basis along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till actual payment.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainants, are that Sukhwinder Singh, the husband of Complainant No. 1, insured his vehicle Regn No. PB-05-Q-9322, Engine No. 578839, Chassis No. EFA2022, Model 2009 with the OP from 24.08.2013 to 23.08.2014. It was financed by Indusind Bank for Rs.10,75,000/-. Sukhwinder Singh died on 12.02.2014. Before his death, the loan was repaid to Indusind Bank. Post his death, Complainant No. 1 attempted to transfer the insurance policy to the legal heirs’ names. The OP required the death certificate, RC showing ownership transfer, and the original policy for effecting the transfer. However, due to hypothecation by Indusind Bank, the RC transfer was hindered without a NOC from the Bank. Despite repaying the loan, the Indusind Bank delayed and eventually refused to issue the NOC, forcing Complainant No. 1 to file a complaint against the Bank on 03.04.2014. The Consumer Court ruled in favor of the Complainant on 22.01.2015, directing Indusind Bank to issue the NOC upon submission of No Objection by other legal heirs. The NOC issued by Indusind Bank on 20.02.2015 was dated incorrectly as 03.02.2014. Despite requesting for correction, the Complainant accepted the NOC with incorrect date. The policy period was from 24.08.2013 to 23.08.2014. Sukhwinder Singh’s death was intimated to the OP, but due to the RC transfer issue, the policy was not transferred. The Complainant renewed the policy in the deceased’s name for the period 24.08.2014 to 23.08.2015 as advised by the OP, pending RC transfer. On 28.01.2015, the vehicle met with an accident resulting in total loss. The OP’s surveyor inspected the vehicle, but the claim was repudiated on 13.03.2015, citing the policy was not transferred within three months of the insured’s death. She alleged the rightful claim was wrongfully denied. Being aggrieved, they filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.

4. In reply, before the District Forum the Respondent/ OP averred that no legal heir certificate was submitted, nor was the policy transferred to the Complainants’ names, justifying the repudiation of the claim on 13.03.2015. They contended that the Complainants never approached them for policy transfer, disputing the occurrence of the claimed incident. The OP denied the allegations and sought dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5. The District Forum, vide Order dated 02.02.2018 allowed the complaint with the following directions:—

“10. Consequently, the instant complaint succeeds and the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 13,75,000/- to the complainants as compensation as IDV of the vehicle in question, subject to furnishing the letter of subrogation, power of attorney for transfer of RC of the vehicle in question in favour of the Opposite Party, by the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which amount awarded will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order until full & final recovery. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the