JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      Shri Shivaji Kashinath Tarse is the registered owner of vehicle bearing No. MH 15 BX 3675.  He obtained insurance policy from the Reliance Insurance Company Limited, the respondent, which covered the period from 15.7.2008 to 14.7.2009.  The said vehicle met with an accident on 17.10.2008.  An amount of Rs.2,32,998/- was incurred on its repairs.  The insurance company repudiated the claim and therefore, the complaint was lodged with the District Forum.

2.      The defence set up by the respondent is that the complainant had suppressed the fact that the said vehicle was transferred by the respondent through a notorised agreement dated 12.10.2007 to one Shri Shirish Chandrakant Nagare and also parted with the possession of the vehicle.  These facts came to light when the Surveyor of the insurance company made inquiries from the office of RTO.  The Surveyor also recorded the statement of the family members of Shri Shirish Chandrakant Nagare.  The complainant did not dispute the said notorised documents of the transfer of the vehicle.  Shri Shirish Chandrakant Nagare did not try to change the ownership in the RTO record. 

3.      We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.  Before us, he raised a new argument.  He explained that the said document of transfer was subsequently cancelled.  He admitted that this plea was not set up in the complaint filed before the District Forum.  However, he explained that this fact was, for the first time, stated in the rejoinder.  The said document of cancellation of agreement was not placed on record.  It appears to be an afterthought.  After going through the written statement, the complainant thought of given such like reply.  Being an afterthought, it cuts no ice.  After receipt of repudiation letter, it should have been the main ground.  Again, no reason was given as to why there was cancellation of the said transaction.  It was also not proved that at the time of accident, either the petitioner or his driver was driving the vehicle.  On the contrary, it appears that the family members of Shri Nagare were in possession of the vehicle.  Thirdly, the notorised document mentioned that Rs.51,000/- in cash was paid to the complainant by Shri Nagare.  The said document further depicts that on the date of transaction between the complainant and Nagare, a amount of Rs.6,45,000/- was outstanding against the loan as the vehicle was hypothecated to HDFC Bank.  In absence of any other evidence, the sale become absolute and ownership of the vehicle got changed in the name of Shri Shirish Chandrakant Nagare.  No information was given to HDFC Bank.  The complainant shows that the complainant had sold the vehicle.  He seized to be a consumer and the relationship as consumer and insurance company as service provider came to an end. 

4.      Arguments were heard in this case on 18.7.2012.  On the next date when this judgment was dictated, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner wanted to file written arguments and authority.  He was permitted to file authority only.  The authority cited by him is by the National Commission in revision petition No. 2964 of 2007 pronounced on 22.11.2011 where the facts in the judgments are these.

“Smt. Ratna Jain, who was the owner of the Indica car bearing No. AP 15 P 6285, got the vehicle insured for the period from 3.3.2004 to 2.3.2005.  Respondent/complainant purchased the said car from her and got it transferred in his name on 8.3.04.  Respondent along with his family members went to Vijayawada Krishna Pushkaram in the said car.  The car was stolen while the family of the Respondent were taking holy both in the Krishna river.  Respondent reported the matter to the police who registered a case of theft in crime No. 260/04.  Respondent also obtained a final report submitted by the police before the Magistrate that the car was not traceable.  Respondent lodged the claim with the Petitioner.  Claim was not settled.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner in not settling the claim, Respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum.”

It was held that :

                   “In view of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Tariff Regulations and the decisions of the Supreme Court, if the transferee fails to inform the Insurance Company about transfer of the Registration Certificate in his name and the policy is not transferred in the name of the transferee, then the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the claim in the case of own damage of vehicle.  Petitioner Insurance Company was justified in not settling the claim.”

5.      We find that this case is of no help to the petitioner.  His case rather stands on a lower footing.

6.      The consumer foras have to be empirical and practical in confronting reality.  The State Commission has meticulously checked the record with precision and clarity.  We, therefore, support his views down the line and dismiss the revision petition.