ORDER

PER BHARATKUMAR PANDYA. MEMBER

1. Heard Mr. N.P. Sharma, Advocate learned counsel for the Appellants and Ms.Sunanda Nimisha, Advocate for R-1. None appeared for R-2.

2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case, as pleaded before the District Forum (Annexure RP-8, pp. 53-58 of the paper book), are that the complainant purchased a Toyota Innova bearing Registration No. PB-10-AJ-0040 from Opposite Party No. 2 in January 2009 and applied for transfer of ownership before the District Transport Officer, Mohali on 25.03.2009, whereafter the Registration Certificate was transferred in his name on 26.06.2009. The vehicle was already insured with Opposite Party No. 1, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., and the existing policy was to expire on 09.04.2009; accordingly, before its expiry, the complainant approached the insurer for renewal and paid the premium from his own bank account. The policy was renewed for the period 10.04.2009 to 09.04.2010 and the Certificate of Insurance dated 21.05.2009 mentioned “M/s Dee Emm Wire Products c/o Nitesh Garg.” The complainant pleaded that the insurer knowingly accepted the premium from him and renewed the policy during the subsistence of his ownership, thereby creating a valid and subsisting contract of insurance covering the vehicle. It was further pleaded that on 26.03.2010 the vehicle was stolen from Sector-35, Chandigarh, whereupon an FIR was lodged on 27.03.2010 and the insurer was duly informed. After investigation, the police issued a non-traceable report and all requisite claim documents were submitted to the insurance company. The insurer appointed an investigator who confirmed the theft as genuine. However, vide letter dated 30.04.2010 and subsequently by formal repudiation dated 10.05.2010, the claim was denied on the ground that the insurance policy had not been transferred in the complainant’s name in terms of GR-17 of the India Motor Tariff. The complainant asserted that such repudiation was arbitrary, illegal and amounted to deficiency in service, particularly when the premium had been accepted from him and the loss had occurred during the policy period. Even a joint letter was sent by the complainant and the previous owner requesting settlement of the claim in favour of either of them, but the insurer failed to act upon it. On these averments, the complainant sought payment of the insured value of the vehicle i.e., Rs.7 lakhs, Rs.50,000/- mental harassment and 10,000/- litigation cost.

2.2. The Opposite Party No. 1 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. filed its Written Statement before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Annexure RP-9, pp. 59-67 of the paper book), contesting the complaint in toto and raising both preliminary and substantive objections. The insurer pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable as there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the insurance company on the date of loss. It was specifically averred that the insurance policy for the period 10.04.2009 to 09.04.2010 stood in the name of M/s Dee Emm Wire Products (Opposite Party No. 2) and was never transferred in the name of the complainant in accordance with the mandatory provisions of GR-17 of the India Motor Tariff. The insurer contended that although the vehicle may have been sold and the registration later transferred in favour of the complainant on 26.06.2009, the complainant failed to apply within 14 days of such transfer for endorsement of the insurance policy in his name, failed to submit a fresh proposal form, failed to pay the requisite transfer fee, and failed to surrender the original certificate of insurance. In the absence of compliance with these mandatory requirements, there was no valid contract of insurance in favour of the complainant for own-damage risk, and therefore he had no insurable interest under the policy on the date of theft. On merits, the insurer admitted issuance of the policy and receipt of intimation regarding theft of the vehic