Challenge in these proceeding is to the order dated 28.04.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission in First Appeal no. 539 of 2009. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the complainant against the dismissal of his complaint by the District Forum seeking insurance claim in respect of a Maruti Car. In appeal, the State Commission has upheld the said findings although on different/additional grounds, the grounds being that the Consumer Fora had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the vehicle was transferred in the name of the petitioner/complainant and the insured vehicle was stolen from Naraina, South West District, New Delhi. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions. We are of the view that the orders passed by the Fora below in dismissing the complaint are eminently justified inasmuch as admittedly after the transfer of the vehicle in his favour, the complainant had not intimated the Insurance Company about the transfer of the vehicle to him and in any case did not seek transfer of insurable interest in the said insurance policy in his favour. The law on the subject is well settled and the orders passed by the Fora below are strictly in consonance with the legal position. In view of this, the order doesn suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error which calls for interference by this Commission. Dismissed.