For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the application is allowed and the delay is condoned.

Complainant-respondent got his vehicle insured from the petitioner.  He entered into negotiation for selling the vehicle to one Smt. Bina Bhati, who is his acquaintance and received some amount as advance.  She failed to pay the remaining balance amount and hence deal could not be finalized.  The said car remained in the ownership of the complainant-respondent.  Complainant-respondent thereafter got LPG kit fitted in his vehicle for which the petitioner charged separate premium from him. 

The said car caught fire on 17.6.2007.  The vehicle was completely damaged and sustained a loss to the tune of Rs.5,06,895/-.  Petitioner on being intimated appointed a Surveyor, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3,53,855/-. Instead of paying the loss assessed by the Surveyor, petitioner repudiated the claim of the respondent on the ground that he did not have any insurable interest as he has sold the vehicle to Smt. Bina Bhati. 

Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.  District Forum held that the respondent continued to be the owner of the vehicle as the registration certificate had not been transferred in the name of Smt. Bina Bhati.  In terms of the finding recorded, District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,53,855/- alongwith interest @8% from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 23.10.2007 till realization.  Petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards litigation cost. 

Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed.

We agree with the finding recorded by the fora below that the complainant-respondent continued to be the owner of the vehicle as the vehicle had not been transferred in the name of proposed vendee. 

This Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 can interfere with the order of the State Commission only if there is any illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of the jurisdiction.  Finding recorded by the fora below is a finding of the facts, which cannot be interfered in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.  No ground for interference is made out.  Dismissed.