JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER(ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner present. Arguments heard. 2. Record from the District Forum received. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that logbook from police department has not been received. There is hardly any need of logbook. We can decide the case in absence of the logbook. 3, The case of the petitioner is this. Shri Bijender, the complainant had sold the vehicle to Ved Pal on 22.10.2007. The said vehicle was stolen during the night falling between 9-10th September, 2009, i.e. after almost two years of sale. The claim of the -3- petitioner was repudiated by the insurance company on two grounds, firstly, the complainant did not have locus-standi to file this complaint and secondly the FIR was delayed by 4-5 days. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. At the very outset, he submits that the complainant, Bijender is not aware, who is Ved Pal and he has not sold this vehicle to Ved Pal. 5. It is well said that truth has the annoying habit of being not staying suppressed for too long. We have perused the statement of Bijender Singh made before the Police where he clearly specifically, unequivocally stated that before his arrival, Shri Ved Pal was already present there. He further submits that he had sold the vehicle to Ved Pal, resident of Lova Khurd, Bahadurgarh for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. This is the story given to the police by Bijender Singh himself. 6. Secondly, we have also perused the affidavit of Shri Ved Pal wherein he clearly stated that Bijender son of Shri Ramcharan had sold the vehicle to him by accepting the three installments. It appears that the District Forum was not aware of all these documents or he ignored the same for the reasons best known to him. The mere fact that the complaint was filed by Bijender Singh or registration and -4- insurance policy continues by his name does not give him any right to file the complaint in this respect. The complainant did not have the locus standi or insurable interest which stood expired with the sale of the vehicle because he had already sold the vehicle to somebody else. The revision petition is without merits, therefore, the same is dismissed. | 
