1. The fact of the case of complainant is that for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment, his wife Anita Jain had purchased a second hand truck bearing Regd. No. OR-30-0425 from one Silabai Jain of Malkangiri and took an insurance policy bearing no. 345492/31/2014/168 dated 09.01.2013 and transferred  the same from the previous owner Silabai Jain and all the documents of the said vehicle have been prepared in her name.After some months his wife was died due to heart attack and the alleged insurance policy was effective from 12.41 P.M. on 09.11.2013 to midnight of 29.09.2014.Further he alleges that on 07.04.2014 the said vehicle was met with an accident and as per advise of O.P. he shifted the vehicle to the garage namely Narayan Auto Works, where he paid Rs. 53,860/- towards spare parts and Rs. 33,000/- for repair charges.Further the complainant alleges that after repair, he claim the expenses made towards spare parts and repair charges, but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to the claim of complainant, thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to pay Rs. 86,860/- with 18% p.a. and Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and costs to him.
    
2. On the other hand, the O.P. appeared in this case and filed their counter denying all the allegations of the complainant stating that he is not a consumer under the O.P.  It is also contended that prior to issuance of insurance policy, his wife has been died and that the policy was in the name of one Silabai Jain who does not have any insurable interest over the said vehicle.  Further it is contended that as per R.C. Book, Anita Jain is the owner of the vehicle, who died on 02.09.2013 prior to issuance of insurance policy w.e.f. 30.09.2013 to 29.09.2014 and thus denying with other contentions, the O.P. prayed to dismiss the case.
    
3. In the instant case, Complainant did not choose to file any document in support of his allegation against the O.P. inspite of repeated adjournment given to him keeping on view of natural justice and also did not participate in the hearing.  Whereas, the O.P. filed certain documents in support of their contentions such as (i) copy of repudiation letter, (ii) copy of investigation report of Sri K.C. Nial, (iii) copy of registration certificate issued in the name of Anita Jain and (iv) copy of death certificate of Anita Jain, which are remained.

4.   In the case in hand, it is an evidentiary fact that the alleged vehicle met with an accident on 07.04.2014, which was registered in the name of one Anita Jain who died on 02.09.2013.  There is also no dispute that the alleged insurance was issued in the name of one Silabai Jain.  As per submissions of complainant that Anita Jain had purchased the alleged vehicle from one Silabai Jain and Anita Jain had taken the insurance policy on 09.01.2013 against the said vehicle and she had transferred all the documents relating to the said vehicle from the previous owner Silabai Jain and prepared in her name, but miserably failed to produce any documents and insurance paper to that effect, inspite of several adjournments given to the complainant.  Further the submissions of complainant regarding the expenses incurred towards spare parts and repair charges may be true but oral submissions regarding the same cannot be taken into consideration, as there is no any single documentary evidence laid by the Complainant to that effect, hence without any documentary evidences, the incurred expenses by Anita Jain cannot believable.

5. Further as per the contentions of the O.P. basing on the relevant documents filed by them, it is clearly established that at the time of accident, the owner of the vehicle was Anita Jain, whereas the insurance policy stands in the name of one Silabai Jain.  Further it is also revealed from the investigation report of Sri K.C. Nial vide report no. OIC/OD-CLAIM/INVT/2014-2015 dated 30.01.2015, filed by the O.P. that

“ after observation of the policy  no. 345492/31/2014/168, it is also found that one GENERAL ENDORSEMENT was made on dated 09.11.2013 as THE CORRECT NAME IS ANITA JAIN, W/O KISHRE JAIN, MAIN ROAD, MALKANGIRI OF THE INSURED BE READ AS ABOVE AND NOT AS STATED IN THE POLICY.  For endorsement, no such premium /amount was received.For further information on Endorsement, I have contacted the present owner and after discussion, came to know that, Shilabai Jain is sister-in-law of the deceased Anita Jain.So, Shila Bai Jain and Anita Jain is not one person”. As such, we feel, if the submissions of complainant will be taken into consideration, than Anita Jain, the wife of complainant could have intimated the insurance company to change the name and address of the owner in the said policy on the date she purchased, but without doing so, she kept silent till 02.09.2013, on which date her death is occurred due to heart attack. And the complainant has cunningly tried to change the name of Silabai Jain after death of Anita Jain.And prior to her death, not doing the same is clear violation of the provisions of M.V.Act as well as terms of contract of insurance policy. Further it is more than clear that although the insurance is in respect of the vehicle, the insurance policy does not run with the registered owner, whereas it is a contract between the insured and the insurer, and the moment the vehicle is transferred, the insurance policy lapses and it is the bounden duty of the transferee to apply in the prescribed form to the insurer for the transfer of the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate, in favour of the transferee to whom the motor vehicle is proposed to be transferred, and further if within fifteen days of the receipt of such application by the insurer, the insurer fails to intimate the insurer’s refusal to transfer the certificate and the policy, the certificate of insurance and the policy is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the transferee with effect from the date of its transfer. But in the case in hand, there is no such documentary evidence from the side of complainant that Anita Jain has informed / applied to the insurance company to transfer her name in the certificate of insurance policy from its previous registered owner.

Further it is also revealed from the said investigation report that “the loss intimation letter of dated 16.04.2014 bears the signature of deceased Anita Jain, which is an irregular one.  Accident took place on dated 07.04.2014”.And the same creates a questionable point that had Anita Jain died on 02.09.2013, than how can it be possible that the signature of Anita Jain was placed in the loss intimation letter dated 16.04.204.

It is well settled of law that investigation report of an authorized investigator plays a vital role for ascertaining the truth.

From the above observation and statement of investigator, it is prima facie established that only to get the undue gains from the insurance company, the complainant has tried to play hide and seek game with them.

As such, we feel, the complainant has not come with a clean hand and concealed the truth before us.Hence we do not think that the present case is a fit case for proceeding.Hence we dismiss the case having no merits.

ORDER

Considering the fact and circumstances, the present case is dismissed against the O.Ps having no merit.  No order as to costs.  Parties to bear their own costs.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 11^th day of December, 2017.

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.