(Delivered on 26/09/2018)

PER MR. JUSTICE A.P.BHANGALE, HON’BLE PRESIDENT.

1.         Heard submission at bar. The appellant have questioned  the  validity  and  legality  of the impugned judgment and award, passed by the  District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur   in consumer complaint case  No. 41/2013 on 11/10/2013, whereby   complaint came to be dismissed.

2.         Briefly stated that   the motor vehicle  registration  No. AP-01/W-6669 was  purchased by the  complainant –Obayya Guruppa Dasari from   Shri  Venkateshwarrao Sanjeevrao, residing  at  Macherial (Andhra Pradesh). According  to the complainant, the complainant  had incurred  loan  to buy the vehicle  and there was insurance policy dated 26/08/2010 bearing No. 18250013/2011/3996. Admittedly, the complainant  was not valid transport  in respect of  the  motor vehicle  as his name  were not  entered  in to R.T.O. Record.  On midnight  of 06/04/2011 to 07/04/2011 the truck was stolen  from Rajura-Gadchandur road,  parked  near the  Prakash  Dhaba.  Accordingly, the complaint  was made with police and intimation was  given to the insurance company.  The insurance company on 05/06/2012 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the policy  was not transferred  on the name of the complainant.  The complainant had prayed for benefit of the insurance policy given details as inaction made with the insurance company.

 3.         According to the learned Forum, after  considering the legal position  stated in the judgment  it had dismissed the complaint.

 4.         At the hearing  of appeal our attention  is invited to the ruling  in National  Insurance Company Limited Vs. Subhash Chand Kataria and another , reported as II (2008) CPJ 324 (NC) decided on 29/02/2008 in revision petition  No.  518/2008 by National Commission.  As against  this  ruling  of latter date meanwhile Didar Singh & others Vs. Reliance General Insurance  Co. Ltd.  reported as III (2014) CPJ 1 (NC) decided on 20/05/2014 in revision petition No. 1816/2014 by the National Commission  held that  when the motor vehicle  was not transferred  in the name of  purchaser  after sale of the vehicle. Handing over  of possession  amounts to sale and it was  obligatory  to get the  insurance  policy  transferred  in his name.  Since, the provisions  of  section 157 of  Motor Vehicle Act were not  complied  with , repudiation was  held  justified on the part of  insurance company.

 5.         There is another ruling  New India  Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar, reported as II (2013) CPJ 162 (NC) whereby  when the purchaser  did not  apply  for  transfer of  insurance  in his name , he did not acquire  any  insurable  interest  in stolen  vehicle  on date of theft.  Therefore,  the insurance company is not liable to pay the claim in case of theft  of vehicle  and thus  the complaint was dismissed.

 6.         Both  the  rulings of National Commission  clearly  laid down that  the purchaser  of motor vehicle  need to  get vehicle  transferred  in his name  including  the insurance policy operating during the period .  In  the absence of such compliance  repudiation  if any and reply to the insurer claim became  justified.  With this observation  we find no ground  to interfere in the impugned  judgment and award.  Hence,  the appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost in appeal.