IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Insurable Interest during Transfer – The process of transferring insurance (submitting applications and fees) often spans several days. If an incident occurs while this process is in progress, the insurer cannot take advantage of administrative “carelessness” or delays to deny a claim.
(2) Limited Revisional Jurisdiction – Citing Rubi (Chandra) Dutta and Sunil Kumar Maity, the NCDRC emphasized that it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by District and State Commissions unless there is a jurisdictional error or patent illegality.

JUDGMENT

AVM J. Rajendra AVSM, VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member.—This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) against the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (“State Commission”) Order dated 13.07.2016 in FA No. 2135/2004 partly allowing the Appeal filed by the OP, modifying the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Moradabad (“District Forum”) the Order dated 15.09.2004 in CC No. 12/2002 to the extent of reducing the rate of interest from 12% to 9% p.a, while affirming the rest of the Order.

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 Complainant, are that he is the owner of a Maruti Van Registration No. DL-2CG-0641. He used to park the van outside his residence at Adarsh Nagar. On 20.03.1998, he went out of the city to attend the last rites of his grandmother. On his return on 26.03.1998, he found the vehicle missing from its place. Despite his efforts, the vehicle could not be traced. He lodged a theft report at Kotwali Katghar, and an investigation was initiated. The said vehicle was earlier owned by M/s Kodriant Exports, who had insured it vide Policy No.31/98/839 from 27.10.1997 to 26.10.1998, covering fire and theft risks. After purchasing the vehicle, the Complainant got the registration and insurance policy transferred in his name, and transfer certificate was issued on 24.03.1998 upon payment of requisite fees. As the vehicle could not be recovered, he submitted a claim before OP-2 on 02.04.1998 along with necessary documents. However, OPs rejected the claim on 10.06.1999 without proper evaluation. The Complainant thereafter requested on 10.02.2000 for reconsideration of the rejection. But, even after two years, no decision was notified. Left with no alternative, he issued a legal notice to OPs and subsequently filed the Consumer Complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction for payment of Rs.1,20,000/- towards the insured amount along with costs and damages.

4. On being issued notice, in the written statement, OPs contended that the Complainant has not approached the District Forum with clean hands and has filed the complaint with false facts to secure an undue benefit. OPs contended that the alleged theft occurred on 20.03.1998, whereas the First Information Report was lodged belatedly on 27.03.1998, in violation of the policy condition requiring intimation of theft to the insurance company within 24 hours. It is further contended that the insurance policy, after transfer in the Complainant’s name, became effective only from 24.03.1998 to 26.10.1998, whereas the alleged theft had taken place prior to the transfer date. Hence, the Complainant had no insurable interest at the time of theft, and the claim was rightly repudiated. The OPs also denied receipt of any valid notice from the Complainant and have prayed for dismissal of the complaint as being devoid of merit and not maintainable in law.

5. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 15.09.2004, allowed the complaint with the following order:—

“Order

The complaint suit of the tenant is allowed in the manner that the complainant is entitled to get the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- and the complainant is also entitled to get the amount of interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 05.03.2002, the date of filing the suit, till the date of actual recovery of the above amount and the complainant is also entitled to receive the amount of Rs.2000/- towards the suit expenses. The defendants are directed to make the payment of the entire amount mentioned above within a period of two months.” (Extract from translated Copy)

6. Being aggrieved by the District Forum Order, the OP filed Appeal No.2135/2004 and the State Commission vide Order dated 13.07.2016 partly allowed the Appeal and modified the Order passed by the District Forum, with the following obse