The Coimbatore District Consumer Commission, comprising President R. Thangavel and Member P. Marimuthu, held IndusInd General Insurance Company Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to process the transfer of a motor insurance policy after ownership of a Honda WR-V was transferred. The insurer cited unclear photographs, alleged vehicle damage and the presence of “Advocate” stickers, but the Commission found these reasons insufficiently substantiated.

Facts:

The complainant, S. Kingsley Paul Robinson, a practising advocate and registered owner of a 2019 Honda WR-V, purchased the vehicle from its previous owner, who was also an advocate. The vehicle was insured with IndusInd General Insurance Company Ltd. under a comprehensive package policy valid from July 3, 2025, to July 2, 2026.

After the ownership transfer and updation of the Registration Certificate (RC) in his name, the complainant applied to the insurer on August 14, 2025, for endorsement of the existing policy. He submitted the updated RC, policy documents and other required particulars, along with photographs of the vehicle.

The complainant alleged that despite submitting photographs and permitting physical inspections by the insurer's officials, his request was not processed. He claimed that he was orally informed that the “Advocate” stickers affixed to the vehicle had to be removed. He contended that the same stickers were present when the vehicle was originally insured, without any objection from the insurer.

The insurer contended that the photographs were unclear and that physical inspection revealed pre-existing damage that had not been disclosed. It maintained that endorsement was subject to underwriting and risk-assessment requirements, including requirements concerning stickers or external markings.

After issuing a legal notice dated October 6, 2025, alleging deficiency in service, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Coimbatore, under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Contentions of the Insurer:

The insurer contended that the photographs were unclear and that physical inspection revealed pre-existing damage which had not been disclosed by the complainant. It argued that endorsement was subject to underwriting and risk-assessment requirements and that removal of stickers or external markings could form part of this process. The insurer denied any deficiency in service and sought dismissal of the complaint.

Observation and Decision

The Commission observed that the insurer failed to provide clear and substantiated reasons for not processing the policy endorsement. The alleged pre-existing damage was not supported by an inspection report, photographs or other satisfactory evidence.

It further noted that the insurer had not produced any policy provision or underwriting guideline making the removal of the “Advocate” stickers mandatory. The Commission held that the refusal to process the request without substantiated reasons amounted to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

As the policy had expired and the complainant had obtained a fresh policy from New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the Commission held that the requested endorsement could not be granted.

Accordingly, the complaint was partly allowed, and the opposite parties were directed to jointly and severally pay ₹50,000 as compensation and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs within one month of receiving the order, failing which interest at 9% per annum would apply until realisation.