Dated 01.02.2024

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

1. Present appeal has been filed by appellant/complainant for setting aside the order dated 12.10.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Vaishali in complaint case no. 75 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the insurance claim has been denied to complainant.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case is that complainant had purchased one Passion Pro motorcycle bearing registration no. BR-1AG-0779 from its original owner Nagendra Kumar on making payment of Rs. 30,000/- and got his name transferred in the owner book on 15.02.2010. Insurance policy was running in the name of original owner Nagendra Kumar which was valid for the period from 09.07.2009 to 08.07.2010 and insured value of motorcycle was Rs. 29,400/-.
3. Motorcycle was stolen from the house of complainant on 02.04.2010 for which FIR was registered giving rise to Hajipur Town, P.S case no. 171 of 2010 dated 02.04.2010 U/s 379 of IPC. Police investigated the case but stolen motorcycle could not be recovered and police submitted final report on 31.07.2010 as case true but without any clue. Complainant intimated insurance company with respect to theft of motorcycle on 05.04.2010.
4. Complainant submitted his insurance claim on 15.02.2011 after filling claim form and enclosing all relevant documents with claim form. The claim of claimant was repudiated by letter dated 13.04.2011 on ground of non-transfer of insurance policy in the name of complainant. Aggrieved by repudiation of claim complainant filed consumer complaint case for payment of insured amount with interest as well as compensation for physical and mental harassment and cost of litigation. Notices were issued to opposite parties.  
5. Opposite party/National Insurance company appeared and filed its written statement stating therein that there is no privity of contract between complainant and opposite party. Contract was with previous owner of the vehicle which ended by sale of the vehicle to complainant. Neither complainant has any insurable interest in vehicle nor opposite party is liable to indemnify complainant for loss suffered by him.
6. District Consumer Forum after hearing the parties and considering and appreciating the evidences on record held that as complainant after transfer of ownership in his name did not apply to the insurance company for transfer of insurance policy as such complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle and dismissed the complaint case, aggrieved by which present appeal has been filed by complainant.
7. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and order as impugned in the appeal as well as materials available on record.
8. In the judgment of Complete Insulation (P) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (1996) SCC 221 as relied upon by District Consumer Forum, it has been held that until the name of the transferee is transferred in the insurance certificate, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the transferee as transferee has no insurable interest.
9. In present case although name of the complainant was transferred in the ownership book by the registering authority but complainant thereafter did not apply to the insurer to transfer his name in insurance policy as such insurer company was justified in repudiating the claim and there is no deficiency in service on part of insurance company.
10. In case of Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Laxman Mane (2020 CPJ NC (4) 248) relying upon judgment of Apex Court (Supra) the National Commission in paragraph no. 7 has held as follows:
          “Since the insurance policy had not been transferred in favour of the complainant and in fact he had not even applied for such transfer by the date on which the vehicle was stolen, the petitioner company is not liable to reimburse the complainant for the loss alleged to have been suffered by him, there being no privity of contract between the complainant and the petitioner. As far as respondent no. 3 is concerned he is also not entitled to any reimbursement he having no insurable interest in the vehicle after 15.06.2006.”
11. There is no merit in this appeal and is accordingly dismissed.  

 (Md. Shamim Akhtar)                                                                                                                 (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                                                                                                     President

Md. Fariduzzama