Sudip Ahluwalia, Member
1. This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Opposite Party No.2 challenging the impugned Order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the State Commission, Delhi, in First Appeal No.740/2011. Vide the said Order, the State Commission had allowed the Appeal while setting aside the Order dated 17.11.2011 passed by the District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum (V) (North West District), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Case No. 828/07.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent No.1/Complainant’s father, Late Sh. Amarjeet Singh, was the registered owner of the truck bearing No. HR-38-J-2818 and had taken an Insurance Policy bearing No. 31/2005/02960 for his truck for a period from 08.09.2004 to 07.09.2005 for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. The Policy holder, Late Sh. Amrajeet Singh, expired on 03.11.2004, and the truck was stolen on the night of 22nd/23rd May, 2005. It was submitted that the FIR was lodged in this regard and an intimation regarding theft was also given to the Insurance Company on 26.05.2005. However, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 18.04.2007 despite submission of all relevant information and documents by the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant had filed a complaint before the District Forum being aggrieved by the act of the Opposite Party in repudiating the claim and had sought relief of the insured value of Rs.7,00,000/- along with other ancillary reliefs.
3. The Opposite Party No. 2 appeared before the District Forum and resisted the Complaint and denied all the allegations thereby denying deficiency in service on its part. It was submitted that the Complaint is without any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed. It was contended by the Opposite Party No. 2 that as per terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy in the event of death of the sole insured, the Policy does not lapse immediately but remains valid for a period of three months from the date of death of insured or until expiry of Policy (whichever is earlier) and during such period, the Legal Heirs of the Insured may apply for the transfer of Policy to their name or obtain a new Policy. And in the present case, the Policy of Late Sh. Amarjeet Singh was not transferred after his death on 03.11.2004 and subsequently the vehicle was stolen on 22.05.2005. It is further submitted that the Complainant got the vehicle transferred in his name on 18.05.2006 i.e., after the theft which is violation of condition No.10 of the Insurance Policy. It was further contended that there is no insurable right of the Complainant in the vehicle in question since the insurance of the vehicle had already expired after three months from the date of death of the Insured i.e. on 03.02.2005. It was further submitted that at the time of theft of the vehicle, the Policy was not in force and the same had already lapsed as per the terms of the Policy and the Opposite Party had rightly repudiated the claim. Hence, the Opposite Party No. 2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The Ld. District Forum vide its Order dated 17.11.2011 dismissed the complaint of the Complainant and observed that:
“As is clear from a bare reading of clause 10 (ibid), on the death of the assured, the policy would remain in operation for a period of 3 months to allow the LRs of the deceased to get it transferred in their names or purchase a new policy. In the case in hand the assured had expired on 03.11.2004 which means the policy had lapsed on 03.02.2005 i.e. on the expiry of 3 months. It is not disputed that the complainant or for the matter any other Lr of the deceased had not got the policy transferred in their names nor had they purchased another policy. It therefore, follows that there was no insurance policy in operation at the time the truck in question was stolen. The claims lodged by the complainant was, therefore, rightly repudiated by the insurance company. The complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle in question…………….
In the result, we hold that there are no merits in the complaint which is hereby dismissed.”
5. Aggrieved by the above Order, First Appeal bearing No.740/2011 was filed by the Complainant/Appellant (Respondent No.1 herein) against the Respondent No.1/ Opposite Party No.1 (Respondent No.2 herein) and Respondent No.2/ Opponent No.2 (Petitioner herein) before the State Commission, Delhi.
6. The Ld. State Commission vide impugned Order dated 02.04.2018 allowed the Appeal while setting aside the Order of District Forum. The Ld. State Commission placed its reliance on the Order dated 30.03.2016 passed by NCDRC in RP 4688 of 2008 and Order dated 29.01.2007 passed by State Commission, Delhi in FA 1140 of 2006 and observed that-
“Having regard to the discussion done and law laid down we are of the considered view that the repudiation of the claim is not sustainable. The insurance company cannot escape its responsibility and obligation to allow the claim. Accordingly we set aside the orders passed by the Distt. Fora and direct the insurance company to settle and pay the claim within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.”
7. Hence, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Opposite Party No. 2 against the above mentioned impugned Order of the Ld. State Commission on the grounds-
a. That at the time of accident, the vehicle was in the name of Lt. Sh. Amarjeet Singh and after the accident, it must be transferred in the name of Legal Heirs as per clause 10 of the Policy. At the time of theft, the Policy had already lapsed due to failure on the part of Legal Heirs for non-appliance for transfer in the name of Legal Heirs or Respondent;
b. That the Insurance Company has not received any specific request from the Respondent in respect of transfer of insurance within 3 months from the death of the insured. Hence, the Policy lapsed on 03.02.2005;
c. That the Ld. State Commission had wrongly placed reliance on the judgement dated 30.03.2016 passed in RP 4688 of 2008 in the case of ‘New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Jagjit Singh’. This Hon’ble Commission has already dismissed the complaint in a pre-decided case of NIA v. Kalawati & Ors’’., in RP No. 122 of 2016;
d. That on the death of the insured, the son of the deceased insured ceased to be a consumer and their relationship as a consumer and the Insurance Company as service provider came to an end. It is incumbent on the part of respondent or the LRs to get the Policy transferred.
It is further submitted by the Petitioner in the Petition that the Insurance Company had appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss of the insured vehicle and the surveyor had submitted its final report dated 13.09.2005 assessing the loss at Rs.7 Lacs.
8. In addition to the above contentions, the Petitioner has argued that the while construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance and it is not open for the court to add, delete or substitute any word. It is further argued that the Delhi District Court in a case titled as “Smt. Devwati v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.’ (CS No. 292/12)” dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff, being the wife of insured failed to transfer the Policy in her name within the period of 3 months.
9. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.
10. It has been argued on behalf of the Petitioner-Insurance Company that it is settled law that in the event of any failure on the part of a transferee of an insured vehicle to comply with the relevant terms and conditions in the Insurance Policy within the time period provided therein, the Insurer is not liable to satisfy his claim. This position of law has been accepted not only by this Commission in “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Goli Shridhar & Another (RP No. 2964 of 2007, decided on 22.11.2011” and “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A. Kalavathi, (RP No. 877 of 2011), decided on 8.8.2012”; but also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Complete Insulation (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1996 AIR 586”.
11. In “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A. Kalavathi” (supra), this Commission had dismissed the complaint of the Respondent who happened to be the wife of deceased-owner-Mr.Armugam and who had had not got his Insurance Policy transferred in her name within the time of three months as required in the relevant terms of the Policy.
12. In “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Goli Shridhar & Another” (supra), this Commission had similarly dismissed the complaint where the complainant who was the purchaser of the insured vehicle from its Erstwhile owner, had not applied for transfer of Policy in his name within 14 days from the date of transfer of ownership, which was one of the conditions laid down in the Policy.
13. In “Complete Insulation (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.” (supra), the claim qua own damage suffered by the Complainant was similarly held to be not covered, although the Apex Court held that the indemnifying Clause qua 3rd party risk to indemnify was enforceable. On perusal of the following observations of the Apex Court -
“The moot question involved in the case is whether on the above facts, without the insurance policy being transferred in the name of the appellant, it was entitled to be indemnified by the insurer. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter called ‘the New Act’) a certificate of insurance is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the vehicle is transferred but that the said provision applied only in relation to third party risk and did not apply to a policy covering risk of damage to the vehicle or person of the insured. The National Commission placed reliance on a judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Madinani Kondaiah and Ors. etc. v. Yaseen Fatima and Ors. etc. MANU/AP/0221/1985: AIR 1986 AP 62.”
Thereafter, the Apex Court held inter alia –
“10. Section 157 appears in Chapter XI entitled ’Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risks’ and comprises sections 145 to 164. Section 145 defines certain expressions used in the various provisions of that chapter. The expression ’Certificate of Insurance’ means a certificate issued by the authorised insurer under section 147(3). ’Policy of Insurance’ includes a certificate of insurance. Section 146(1) posits that ‘no person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this chapter’. Of course this provision does not apply to vehicles owned by the Central or State Government and used for Government purposes not connected with any commercial enterprise. This provision corresponds to section 94 of the Old Act. Section 147 provides that the policy of insurance to be issued by the authorised insurer must insure the specified person or classes of persons against any liability incurred in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party as well as against the death of or bodily injury caused to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. This provision is akin to section 95 of the Old Act. It will be seen that the liability extends to damage to any property of a third party and not damage to the property of the owner of the vehicle, i.e. the insured. Sub-section (2) stipulates the extent of liability and in the case of property of a third party the limit of liability is rupees six thousand only. The proviso to that sub-section continues the liability fixed under the policy for four months or till the date of its actual expiry, whichever is earlier. Sub-section (3) next provides that the policy of insurance shall be of no effect unless and until the insurer has issued a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form. The next important provision which we may notice of is Section 156 which sets out the effect of the certificate of insurance. It says that when the insurer issues the certificate of insurance, then even if the policy of insurance has not as yet been issued, the insurer shall, as between himself and any other person except the insured, be deemed to have issued to the insured a policy of insurance conforming in all respects with the description and particulars stated in the certificate. It is obvious on a plain reading of this provision that the legislature was anxious to protect third party interest. Then comes Section 157 which we have extracted earlier. This provision lays down that when the owner of the vehicle in relation whereto a certificate of insurance is issued transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle, the certificate of insurance together with the policy described therein shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the new owner of the vehicle with effect from the date of transfer. Sub-section (2) requires the transferee to apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer to the insurer for making necessary changes in the certificate of insurance and the policy described therein in his favour. These are the relevant provisions of Chapter XI which have a bearing on the question of insurer’s liability in the present case.
11. There can be no doubt that the said chapter provides for compulsory insurance of vehicles to cover third party risks. Section 146 forbids the use of a vehicle in a public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of that vehicle a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of that chapter. Any breach of this provision may attract penal action. In the case of property, the coverage extends to property of a third party i.e. a person other than the insured. This is clear from Section 147(1)(b) (i) which clearly refers to ’damage to any property of a third party’ and not damage to the property of the ’insured’ himself. And the limit of liability fixed for damage to property of a third party is rupees six thousand only as pointed out earlier. That is why even the claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 is invested with jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damage to any property of a third party so arising, or both. Here also it is restricted to damage to third party property and not the property of the insured.
Thus, the entire chapter XI of the New Act concerns third party risks only. It is, therefore, obvious that insurance is compulsory only in respect of third party risks since Section 146 prohibits the use of a motor vehicle in a public place unless there is in relation thereto a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of Chapter XI. Thus, the requirements of that chapter are in relation to third party risks only and hence the fiction of Section 157 of the New Act must be limited thereto. The certificate of insurance to be issued in the prescribed form (See Form 51 prescribed under Rule 141 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989) must, therefore, relate to third party risks. Since the provisions under the New Act and the Old Act in this behalf are substantially the same in relation to liability in regard to third parties, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was right in the view it took based on the decision in Kondaih’s case because the transferee-insured could not be said to be a third party qua the vehicle in question. It is only in respect of third party risks that Section 157 of the New Act provides that the certificate of insurance together with the policy of insurance described therein "shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred". If the policy of insurance covers other risks as well, e.g., damage caused to the vehicle of the insured himself, that would be a matter falling outside Chapter XI of the New Act and in the realm of contract for which there must be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee, the former undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle. In the present case since there was no such agreement and since the insurer had not transferred the policy of insurance in relation thereto to the transferee, the insurer was not liable to make good the damage to the vehicle. The view taken by the National Commission is therefore correct.”
(Emphasis added)
14. From the side of the Respondent/Complainant however it has been argued that an Insurance claim is to be viewed from the perspective that it is the vehicle that is insured and not its owner. In support of such contention, the decision of this Commission in “New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jagjit Singh (RP No. 4688 of 2008)” was cited in which on this premise the decision of the State Commission had also gone in favour of the Complainant who had succeeded in his claim before the District Forum.
15. In a similar situation, the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had also disposed off the Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company in “National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma (First Appeal No. 1140 of 2006)” in favour of the Complainant since it was of the view that-
“7. On the concept of equity, it is the vehicle which is insured and not the person and the only safeguard in such cases where total loss is by way of theft is that if the insurable interests have not been transferred in the name of the person who has purchased the vehicle inspite of being the actual owner, the “No Objection Certificate” from the original owner as well indemnity bond from the claimant should be obtained. But in no way the Insurance Company can escape from its liability against the policy. If such a benefit is given to the insurance companies then it will get unjustly enriched whereas the actual consumer would be at great jeopardy and his interest would suffer.”
16. The Apex Court in “National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal, Civil Appeal No. 3409/2008”, had upheld the Order of the State commission which had allowed compensation for the stolen vehicle on a Non-Standard Basis at 75% of the insured amount where there was a breach of the Policy terms and conditions to the extent that the vehicle in question was being used as a taxi for carrying passengers on payment, although it was registered and insured as a private vehicle. But in doing so, the Apex Court after noting the submission of the Respondent/Claimant that even assuring that there was a breach of condition of the Insurance Policy, the Appellant-Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim on Non-Standard Basis and that it could not repudiate the claim in Toto in case of loss of the vehicle due to theft. But, the Apex Court did not make any specific observations on the legal position in this regard and observed inter alia –
“15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the real question is whether, according to the contract between the respondent and the appellant, the respondent is required to be indemnified by the appellant. On the basis of the settled legal position, the view taken by the State Commission cannot be faulted and the National Commission has correctly upheld the said order of the State Commission.
16. The State Commission had allowed only 75% claim of the respondent on non-standard basis. We are not deciding whether the State Commission was justified in allowing the claim of the respondent on non-standard basis because the respondent has not filed any appeal against the said order. The said order of the State Commission was upheld by the National Commission.
17. In our considered view, no interference is called for. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.”
17. In “Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 653/2020”, the Supreme Court in relying upon the ratio of an earlier decision in “Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance & Anr., Civil Appeal 15611/2017 decided on 4.10.2017” reversed the decision of this Commission in a case where both the District Forum and the State Commission had granted compensation to the Complainant, while the Revision filed by the Insurance Company was allowed by this Commission in a case where there was delay on the part of the Complainant in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of theft of his insured vehicle.
18. In “Om Prakash and Other Vs. Rajbiri & Ors., First Appeal No. 1609 of 1992” the Punjab & Haryana High Court had allowed the complaint where the original insured had died, but the Insurance Policy continued to be renewed in his name in place of his son.
19. An emphatic reliance on a decision of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in “Sukhwinder Kaur Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Appeal No. 669/2019”, where the original insured had died and claim for the stolen vehicle by his Legal Heirs was repudiated as they had failed to give intimation of the Insured’s death, the State Commission held that the Complainants being the only legal as well as natural successors of the deceased, Gursharan Singh was entitled to compensation as it was the vehicle and not the person insured.
20. In “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Prakash Raturi, Revision Petition No. 550/2008”, where this Commission had dismissed the complaint in a case in which Insurance Policy was in the name of previous owner-Smt. Roopa Sharma and not the purchaser/Complainant, the Apex Court remanded back the matter to this Commission after observing inter alia –
“7.It was noted as if there was no dispute that when the vehicle was insured the registration certificate had been seen by the insurance company. It was noted that there was no dispute that the vehicle had been transferred in the name of the complainant. In fact, there was categorical dispute about this fact. It is, therefore, clear that the National Commission has disposed of the revision petition without considering the relevant factors.
8. In the circumstances, we set aside the order of the National Commission and remit the matter to it for a fresh consideration in accordance with law.
9. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.”
Thereafter, the Revision Petition which was remanded back, was dismissed for non-prosecution on 30.8.2011 by this Commission, when no appearance was put in on behalf of the Petitioner after being notified.
21. Having considered the applicability of the decisions relied upon by the Respondent/Complainant, this Commission is, however, of the view that on the existing position of law in this regard, particularly in the light of some subsequent decisions of the Apex Court, his claim is not tenable. This is so because it has to be noted that breach of Policy conditions which in the present case happen to be failure to get the Policy transferred in the name of the Complainant within the time prescribed, ipso facto disentitles him from claiming the compensation as on the relevant date i.e. three months after death of his father- registered owner and insured, as there was no privity of contract between him and the Insurance Company. The Apex Court has not held anywhere that any distinction is liable to be made in the event of a transferee purchaser with a natural LR/Successor where there is non-compliance of the Policy terms and conditions. The view of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court or of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in this regard, have only persuasive value for this Commission. The categorical view of the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding binding nature of the terms and conditions and even the words used in the Insurance Policy in this regard as laid down in the case of “Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited Vs. Garg Sons International” which was delivered in deciding Civil Appeal No.1557 of 2004 alongwith other connected Appeals on 17/01/2013. The relevant extracts from the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court are set out is as below:-
“8. It is a settled legal proposition that while construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled, that since upon issuance of an account of risks covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed in order to determine the extent of the liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavour of the Court should always be to interpret the words used in the contract in the manner that will best express the intention of the Parties (Vide Suraj mal Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., MANU/SC/0814/2010 : (2010) 10 SCC 567).
9. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. “….the terms of the contract have to be construed strictly, without altering the nature of the contract as the same may affect the interests of the Parties adversely.” The clauses of an Insurance Policy have to be read as they are….. Consequently, the terms of the Insurance Policy, that fix the responsibility of the Insurance Company must also be read strictly. The Contract must be read as a whole and every attempt should be made to harmonize the terms thereof, keeping in mind the rule of contra proferentem does not apply in case of commercial contract, for the reason that a clause in a commercial contract is bilateral and has mutually been agreed upon.
(Vide: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sony Cheriyan MANU/SC/0495/1999: AIR 1999 SC 3252; Polymat India P. Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. MANU/SC/1019/2004: AOR 2005 SC 286; Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. v. Oil and Natural Gas Co. MANU/SC/0540/2010: AIR 2010 SC 3400; and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Dean Chand Ram Saran MANU/SC/0327/2012: AIR 2012 SC 2829).
10. In Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. and Anr. v. New India Assurance co. Ltd. MANU/SC/0519/2009 SC 2493, it was held:
An Insurance contract, is a species of commercial transactions and must be construed like any other contract to its own terms and by itself…. The Endeavour of the Court must always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the Parties. The Court while construing the terms of policy is not expected to venture into extra liberalism that may result in rewriting the contract or substituting the terms which were not intended by the Parties.
(see also Sikka Papers Limited v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. MANU/SC/0907/2009: AIR 2009 SC 2834)
11.Thus it is not permissible for the Court to substitute the terms of the contract itself, under the garb of construing terms incorporated in the agreement of insurance. No exceptions can be made on the ground of equity. The liberal attitude adopted by the Court, by way of which it interferes in the terms of an insurance agreement, is not permitted. The same must certainly not be extended to the extent of substituting words that were never intended to form a part of the agreement.”
22. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in “Export Credit Corporation Limited (Supra)” there can be no doubt that the Forum which decides on an insurance claim cannot go beyond the specified terms and conditions specified within the words used in the policy or the relevant scheme, and cannot under the guise of a Social Welfare Interpretation extend the meaning of those words artificially.
23. Further, it has been seen in the case of “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A. Kalavathi” (supra) that the complaint of wife of the deceased insured, who was undoubtedly a natural and legal heir/successor, was dismissed by this Commission on account of her failure to comply with the requisite conditions of her husband’s Insurance Policy. The Commission, therefore, is of the opinion that the Ld. State commission in the present case incorrectly allowed the Appeal of the present Respondent whose complaint had been correctly dismissed by the District Forum.
24. However, considering the unprofessional and unfair conduct on the part of the Petitioner/ Insurance Company in not promptly repudiating the claim of the Complainant/Respondent for the reason that he had failed to comply with the relevant Clause for transfer of the Insurance Policy in his name within the specified time from the date of death of his father/ original Insured, would certainly invite censure. It is a matter of record that intimation of the claim was submitted as far back as on 26.5.2005. But, the Complainant was made to approach the Insurance Company again and again on various pretexts and asked to submit some documents or the other which would have been altogether irrelevant if his claim was to be ultimately repudiated solely on the ground that he had failed to comply with the requisite Policy terms and conditions. The documents asked from the Complainant during the intervening period were such irrelevant ones as the original Cover Note, financial repayments, status, proof of existence of vehicle in the month of November, 2004, apart from asking him to comply with some other formalities vide letter dated 10.1.2007 (as mentioned in Para 9 of the complaint). But, copy of such letter has not been placed on record on behalf of the Petitioner/Insurance Company. The claim was finally repudiated almost two years later on 18.4.2007 after the Complainant had been made to submit all the information and documents sought from him. He certainly deserves to be compensated for such harassment, callousness and uncalled for attitude on the part of the Insurance Company in making him run from pillar to post before finally repudiating his claim for a reason which had no nexus with the various compliances he had been made to perform for a long time span of almost two years.
25. Consequently, while holding that the claim of the Complainant was not tenable on account of non-compliance of relevant Policy conditions which required him to get the Policy transferred in his name within the time specified, the Revision is allowed after setting aside the Impugned Order of the State Commission. At the same time, a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental pain and harassment is awarded to the Respondent on account of the dilatory and harassing attitude of the Petitioner- Insurance Company before belatedly repudiating his insurance claim.
26. Parties to bear their own costs.
27. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
