JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.      Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.  Ram Lal, complainant No. 2      purchased one Tata Indica Car bearing registration No. CH-04 C-8156 from Dr. Sandeep Puri, complainant No. 1.  The possession of the car was handed over to complainant No. 2 by complainant No. 1 on 26.4.2011.  The complainant No. 1 had got the insurance of the car which was valid from 28.2.2011 to 27.2.2012.  The complainant No. 2 visited the office of the opposite party No. 1 on 28.4.2011 and intimated the insurance company about the sale of the vehicle and submitted a letter to it but the opposite party refused to accept the same and advised him that the insurance policy of the vehicle could be transferred in his name only when the registration certificate of the vehicle was transferred in favour of complainant No. 2 as per the guidelines of the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority.  This is undisputable fact that the complainant No. 2 after completing all the formalities, for the transfer of the car applied to the Registering and Licensing Authority.

2.      The registration certificate was transferred in the name of complainant No. 2 on 13.6.2011.  He did not apply for transfer of insurance policy within 14 days.  He took the plea that he was given the next date by the office of the Registration and Licensing Authority, Chandigarh to collect the registration Certificate on 13.7.2011 and again on 9.9.2011.  This plea appears to be false.  The registration certificate was ready on 13.6.2011.  The Registering and Licensing Authority, Chandigarh could not have possibly given him dates of 13.7.2011 and 9.9.2011. 

3.      It is thus clear that the petitioner has failed to follow the provisions of GR-17 of Indian Motor Tariff and Section 50 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.  Consequently, he is not entitled to any claim.  The State Commission has placed reliance on three authorities reported in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Kamal Tours and Travels III (2011) CPJ 39(NC), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shri Divya Prashad I (2011) CPJ 22 (NC) and New India Assurnace Co. Ltd. vs. Dalip Kumar IV (2011) CPJ 579 (NC). 

4.      The story propounded by the petitioner that he approached the insurance company on 29.4.2011 and wanted to inform them through a letter does not just stake up.  The letter if any could have been posted.  There is no evidence that he was given the date of 13.7.2011 and 9.9.2011 by the Registering and Licensing Authority, Chandigarh for collecting the registration certificate.  These are oral submissions which are not bolstered by any documentary evidence.  Is it not easy to create such stories at any time?  The complainants have tried to evade the truth by a quibble.  All these arguments appear to have been made out of whole cloth.

The revision petition is lame of strength and therefore dismissed.