This appeal by complainant  is directed against the  order dated 22.5.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh  whereby   his  complaint bearing  No.1359 of 2008  was dismissed. 

2.       The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum.

3..       The facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated  thus ;

                The Complainant had  purchased a Maruti Car bearing registration  No. H-04-6466 from one Sh. Balbir Singh S/o Token Dass and got transferred the same in his name on 3.7.2008 from the Registering Authority, Chandigarh.  The vehicle was insured with the OP for the period from  11.10.2007 till 10.10.2008,so  an application was submitted on 13.7.2008 for transfer of the Policy in the name of Complainant along with NOC from the said Balbir Singh.  However, on 26.7.2008 the said car met with an accident and was badly damaged   near Fun Republic, Manimajra. The incident was reported to the police and  DDR was recorded .  Thereafter, on 1.8.2008 the occurrence  of accident was duly intimated to the OP insurance company, pursuant to which he was asked to submit estimates, which he accordingly submitted . Thereafter, he was   asked to get the vehicle repaired from the workshop.  The complainant then  submitted a bill of Rs.56,350/- on 22.9.2008 to the OP.   The OP did not respond despite   making telephone calls and  personal visits, so, a legal notice dated 3.10.2008 was served upon it . In response thereto, vide letter dated 31.10.2008   the OP repudiated the claim on the ground that Complainant had no insurable interest, therefore, the claim was not payable. Hence, alleging  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

 4.           On the other hand, the case of OP before the District Forum was that  the vehicle in question was insured in the name of Balbir Singh whereas R.C. was in favour of Mr. Anmol Preet Singh, hence, there was no insurable interest of the Complainant and as such  his claim was not payable.   The  Complainant was not asked to get the vehicle repaired from the workshop as his claim was not payable at all because the vehicle was insured in the name of Balbir Singh.  The Surveyor and Loss Assessor appointed by the OP assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.24,503/-, subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.   The Complainant  was required to get the insurance policy transferred as per  rule  GR 17, but he failed to get the same transferred, hence, there was no privity of contract between the Complainant and the OP. It was pleaded that   OP had rightly repudiated the claim as there was no insurable interest of the Complainant in the present case, so he was not entitled to get any claim. A prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 

 5.          The learned District Consumer Forum after going through the  evidence  and hearing   learned counsel for the  parties  came to the conclusion that the repudiation of the claim made by  OP was perfectly legal and valid as they were not legally bound to compensate the complainant. Accordingly the complaint was found without any merit and the same was dismissed.   Still dissatisfied, complainant  has come up in   this appeal. 

6.            We have heard learned counsel for the  parties and gone through the file carefully.  The only noticeable  point of arguments put forth on behalf of the appellant/complainant is that as per GR-10 issued by Tariff Advisory Committee under Indian Motor Tariff applicable from 1.4.1990  on transfer of a vehicle the benefits under the policy in force on the date of transfer shall automatically accrue to the new owner. To support his contention he placed reliance upon the following authorities ;

            (i) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Santro Devi

                2009(1) Law Herald (SC) 74

          (ii) Oriental  Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Capt. Ajay Singh Yadav  & Anr.

               II(2008)CPJ 71 (NC)

            (iii)Sana Vijaya and others Vs Kannaboina Shankar and others

                2007(4) RCR Civil 293

            On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent repelled this point of arguments and stated that though the vehicle stood transferred in the name of complainant but he did not get the policy transferred in his name, so as such insurance  company was not liable to pay the claim. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the authority of Hon’ble National Commission titled Madan Singh Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr I(2009) CPJ 158 (NC).

 7.             We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions putforth on behalf of the parties and gone through the rulings cited by the parties. We   find no force in the contention of learned counsel for appellant inasmuch-as GR 17 indicates that the automatic transfer of insurance cover on sale of vehicle is only relevant to third party risk. It is stipulated in GR-17 that with regard to the transfer of “owner damage liability’ the transferee has to apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle and on receipt of the specific request from the transferee alongwith consent of the transferor, the own damage section of the policy is to be transferred in favour of the transferee.  The authorities cited by the learned counsel for complainant are of no help to him as the facts of these authorities are quite at variance from the facts of instant case and as such no benefit can be derived from the observations made by their lordships.   In a  similar recent case titled Oriental Insurance company Ltd. Vs Reeta, Revision Petition No.2299 of 2005( arising from the order dated 4.5.2005  in appeal No.450 of 2004 of this Commission)  the Hon’ble National Commission  by following the authority of Hon,ble Supreme court in Complete Insulation Pvt. Ltd.  Etc. observed  that Section 157  regarding automatic transfer of insurance policy  is concerned only with regard to  third party claim and not own damage claims.  The provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 and the interpretation given by the Hon’ble Supreme court of India is inconsonance of the provisions and contents of G.R.17  which was made effective w.e.f. 1.7.2002 and according to  G R 17  in the case of package policies, transfer of own damage section of the policy in favour of the transferee is made applicable to the insurer only on receipt of specific consent from the transferee alongwith consent of the transferor.      Admittedly in the instant case the transferee did not seek transfer of the insurance policy in his name as stipulated vide GR-17, provisions of which are mandatory  and as such complainant did not have an insurable interest at the time of accident qua the “own damage claim” and thus no deficiency in service can be attributed to OP for repudiation of the claim. 

8.         In this view of our foregoing discussion, we find no illegality in   the impugned order dated 22.5.2009 passed by the District Forum which  is  well reasoned and  justified in the given facts and  circumstances and we uphold the same. Consequently, the appeal fails and same is hereby  dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 

             Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.