ORDER



The complainant is the registered owner of a motor bike bearing
registration no. DL 3S BS 5696.  The motor bike was stolen on
17.11.2012 and an FIR was lodged in respect of the theft on
18.11.2012.  The complainant had informed the OP about the theft of
the vehicle on 19.11.2012.  The Op has ,however ,repudiated the claim
filed by the complainant on the ground  that he had no insurable
interest in the stolen vehicle  at the time of the loss.   The
complainant has approached this forum for an order against the OP
claiming that the repudiation of the claim was an act of deficiency on
its part.

    The complainant, however, admits that the vehicle was originally
owned by one Abu Nasir and it was purchased by him from the said Abu
Nasir on 14.10.2012.    He had applied to the transport authority for
transfer of the vehicle in his name which was granted on 23.10.2012.
  It is admitted by him that he had not moved any application with the
OP for transfer of the policy in his name within 14 days of the date
of purchase or within 14 days of the date of transfer.   The sole
question for our consideration is as to whether the OP insurance
company was justified in repudiating the claim.    The answer is
provided by a judgment of the NCDRC titled as New India Assurance
Company Ltd V/s Sh. Ashok Kumar REVISION PETITION NO. 2118 OF 2012
Decided on 19.3.2013.   wherein the NCDRC after going into the
provisions of  GR 17 issued by

Tariff Advisory Committee and section 157 of the motorcycle act held as under:-

In view of the above noted provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and the
Tariff Regulations as also the decision of Supreme Court it is clear,
if the transferee fails to inform the insurance company about the
transfer of registration of vehicle in his name and the policy is not
transferred in the name of the transferee, then the insurance company
is not liable to pay the claim to the transferee in case of theft of
the vehicle. Thus, we are of the view that petitioner insurance
company was justified in repudiating the claim and there is no
deficiency in service on their part.

In view of the judgment quoted by us above , we have no hesitation in
holding that the insurance coampny was justified in repudiating the
claim filed by the complainant. We see no merits in this complaint.
The same is hereby dismissed.

Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.

    File be consigned to record room.

          Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................