Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President (Oral):

Heard Sh. Moin Hyder, Advocate, holding brief of Sh. Ramesh Sati, learned counsel for the appellant.

This appeal has been preferred with a delay of 22 days’.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on delay condonation application.

The delay in filing the appeal has been explained by the appellant in the affidavit attached with the delay condonation application.

We are satisfied with the reasons shown by the appellant for delay in filing the appeal.  Therefore, the delay condonation application is allowed and the delay of 22 days’ in filing the appeal is condoned.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant on admission.

This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 20.02.2018 passed by the District Forum, Chamoli in consumer complaint No. 07 of 2014, whereby the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint filed by the appellant – complainant.

The perusal of the impugned order passed by the District Forum shows that the appellant – complainant has not spent any amount towards the repair of the vehicle.

In the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 135 of 2009, arising out of the order dated 07.07.2009 passed by the District Forum, Chamoli in consumer complaint No. 01 of 2008, this Commission has clearly observed that the vehicle in question was sold by Sh. Ramesh Chandra Gaur (appellant – complainant) to Sh. Mahabir Singh Bisht (who had filed the consumer complaint No. 01 of 2008 before the District Forum).  Therefore, since the appellant – complainant has sold the vehicle in question to Sh. Mahabir Singh Bisht, the appellant ceases to have any insurable interest in the vehicle, as the vehicle is no more in his custody.

The District Forum has held that since the appellant – complainant has not spent any amount in the repair of the vehicle, he can not allege any deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company in not settling the claim.

We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the District Forum and the impugned order passed by the District Forum does not call for any interference by this Commission in its appellate jurisdiction.  The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Appeal is dismissed summarily at the threshold.  No order as to costs.