Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the petitioner herein was opposite party before the District Forum.

          One V. Sinavasa Rao S/o late Venkatappa was the registered owner of a Motor bicycle (Hero Honda –Splendor) bearing registration No. KA 03 EA – 1663.  It was 2000 model.  It was hypothecated to M/s Centurian Bank Ltd.   V. Sinavasa had purchased the vehicle

-2-

under Hire-Purchase Scheme.  He sold the said vehicle to the complainant/respondents for consideration.  An Agreement to Sale  was entered into on 08.3.2000between V. Srinivasa and the complainant/respondent.  There was recital in that Agreement that the complainant was to make payment of the loan installments to that Bank pertaining to the said vehicle.  Rs.18,000/- were paid by the respondent to the registered owner.  Respondent discharged the loan installments regularly to the bank.  The vehicle was stolen on 07.3.2002.  An FIR was lodged with the Police Station.  Inspite of search, the vehicle was not traced.  Respondent had insured the said vehicle with the petitioner which was in operation at the time when the vehicle was stolen.  Respondent filed a claim with the petitioner which was repudiated on the ground that the respondent had no insurable interest over the vehicle in question and, therefore, petitioner was not liable to make good the loss.  Being aggrieved by this, complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          Petitioner entered into appearance before the District Forum and filed its written statement.  It was averred that the complaint was

-3-

not maintainable at law nor on facts of the case;  that the respondent was not the registered owner of the vehicle in question and, therefore, he did not have insurable interest in the same.

          District Forum after taking into consideration the entire set of facts and evidence led by the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a.  w.e.f. 11.4.2002 till realization. 

          Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission  which has been dismissed by the impugned order. 

          Notice sent to the respondent has not been received back ‘Unclaimed’.  Respondent is not present despite service.  He would be deemed to have been served and ordered to be proceeded ex-parte.

          It is not disputed before us that the petitioner had issued the policy in the name of the respondent for the period from 18.1.2002 to 17.1.2003 on a proposal made by the respondent/complainant.  Once the petitioner itself had issued the policy in the name of the

-4-

respondent, then the petitioner cannot deny its liability to pay the insured amount.  We find no infirmity in the order passed by the foras below.  Accordingly,  revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.