1. This appeal challenges the order dated 3/10/2009, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur, partly allowing the Consumer complaint bearing No. 271 of 2009, and thereby directing the OP/appellant herein to allow Rs. 49227/- towards insurance of own damage claim with 9 percent interest per annum there on from the date of repudiation, Rs. 10000/- as compensation and Rs. 1000/- more towards cost of proceedings.
2. Respondent Rupesh Jattewar to be referred as complainant and appellant Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Company Ltd. to be referred as OP for the sake of brevity.
3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under.

Complainant Rupesh Jattewar had purchased a Four Wheeler being Maruti Alto bearing registration No. MH 31/AH7615 from one Vilas Narayan Karole. The said vehicle was insured to the OP and the insurance subsisted for the period from 30/05/2008 to 29/05/2009. The said vehicle was registered in the name of complainant. In the month of January 2009, the complainant on his way to Kondhali from Nagpur near Bajargaon met with an accident and the vehicle got damaged. The complainant immediately went to SEVA automotive private Ltd. to get the vehicle repaired. The technician on inspection gave an estimate of Rs. 49227.37/- towards repairs. Since the vehicle was insured with the OP, the complainant lodged a claim with the OP on 4/2/2009. On 5/2/2009, the OP repudiated the claim as there existed no insurable interest at the time of taking policy as well as at the material time of loss.At the material time of damage to the vehicle, the ownership of vehicle was shown in insurance policy in the name of Mr. Vilas Narayanrao Karole whereas the registration certificate of the vehicle was in the name of Rupesh Arun Jattewar, the complainant. The complainant by letter dated 23/02/2009, informed the OP that he was an absolute and registered owner of the vehicle which he had purchased from Shri Vilas Narayanrao Karole. The Certificate of Registration issued by the RTO was also in the name of the complainant as the owner of the vehicle. Since the vehicle is insured with the OP and the complainant being the registered owner of the vehicle, the complainant is entitled to the loss sustained by him due to damage caused to the vehicle. The OP failed to take cognizance of the letter issued by the complainant. The complainant alleging deficiency in service, filed a Consumer complaint claiming damages of Rs. 1,00,000/-

1. The OP resisted the complaint by filing its written version although, the OP admitted the insurance of the vehicle of the vehicle. It denied the insurance claim to the complainant as the insured interest was not transferred in the name of the complainant. In the event of vehicle being purchased from a person then as per GR 17, the purchaser is duty bound to inform the insurance company about the purchase and to get the insurance of the vehicle transferred in the name of the purchaser after submitting necessary documents in respect of registration of the vehicle.

The insurance of the vehicle was not transferred in the name of the complainant. Therefore they had rightly repudiated the claim and the Consumer complaint deserves to be dismissed being frivolous.

1. The Forum partly allowed the complaint as aforesaid by holding that the OP had rendered deficiency in service by not allowing the claim towards the damage of vehicle when the vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant even if the insurance still remained in the name of the previous owner.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the OP/Insurance company has preferred this appeal on the ground that no policy contract exists between the complainant and OP as the insurance documents reflects the name of original owner of the vehicle that is Vilas Narayanrao Karole and there is no insurable interest of the complainant as per the record. Therefore, there is no contractual obligation to indemnify complainant under the policy.
3. We heard counsel for both the sides and perused the written notes of arguments, copy of the complaint, written version, documents filed on record by the complainant and the authorities relied upon by the appellant.
4. It is not disputed that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant from the original owner Shri Vilas Narayanrao Karole, and the policy of insurance of the vehicle also was in the name of the original owner. The only issue that arises for our consideration is whether any contractual obligation to indemnify complainant under the policy exists between the complainant and the insurance company.
5.  We also perused the authorities of the Supreme Court and National Commission and State Commission relied upon by the appellant being

1. 1996 ACJ-65 SC Complete Insulations V/s New India
2. 2007 III CPJ-411 NC United India V/s Harinder Kaur
3. 2009 (2) All MR 44 State Comm. Mumbai New India V/s Dattatraya
4. I (2011) CPJ-22 N.C. New India Ass. Co Ltd. V/s Shri Divya Prashad
5. R.P. No. 2012 of 2007- N.C. Oriental Insurance V/s M/s Kamal Tours, Decided on 5/5/2011.
6. F.A.NO. A/10/497 State Commission, Nagpur Bench, Br. Manager, Bajaj Allianz Ins. Co Ltd. V/s Omprakash Decided On 15/07/2011
7. R.P. No. 1528/2007- N.C. New India Ass. Co. Ltd. V/s Dalip Kumar, Decided on 18/10/2011
8. R.P. No. 2964/2007 N.C. United India Ins. Co. Ltd. V/s Goli Sridhar, Decided On 22/11/2011.
9. R.P. No. 4387/2009 N.C. New India Ass. Co. Ltd. V/s Chandrakant, Decided on 11/03/2010.
10. R.P. No. 2355/2012- N.C. Sandeep Gupta V/s United India Ins. Co. Ltd. , Decided On 14/02/2014.

It is consistently observed in the aforesaid authorities that

if the transferee fails to inform the insurance company about the transfer of Registration Certificate in his name, and the policy is not transferred in the name of transferee, then the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the claim in case of own damage of the vehicle.

The facts of the present case squarely fall within the purview of the authorities cited above. It is also not a case of complainant that he informed the insurance company about the transfer of Registration Certificate and the OP failed to make the necessary change. Therefore allowing the complaint in absence of any existence of any contractual obligation between the parties cannot sustain in law being illegal, irregular and infirm.

1.  For the foregoing reason we find the appeal deserves to be allowed and we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Appeal is allowed.
2. The impugned order dated 3/10/2009, passed in Consumer complaint No. 271 of 2009 is quashed and set aside. The complaints stands dismissed.
3. Parties to bear their own cost.
4. Copy of order be given to both the parties, free of cost.