Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent / complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent / complainant had purchased a second hand car from one Shri Praveen Sharma, who as the original owner had obtained the Insurance Policy from the petitioner. This car was stolen on 20.06.07 during the life of the Policy. Matter was reported to the Police, which gave untraced report. The matter was taken-up with the petitioner Insurance Company, who repudiated the claim on the ground that the respondent / complainant had no insurable interest as the Policy was not issued to him. It was in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, which allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- on account of insured amount alongwith Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed, hence this revision petition before us. We heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the insurance policy, issued by the petitioner, was not in the name of the respondent / complainant, leading thereto the fact that there was no contract between the parties. The Insurance Cover was in the name of the original owner who is not a party before the District Forum to dispute. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner wishes to rely upon a judgement passed by this Commission in the case of “Madan Singh Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. [I (2009) CPJ 158 (NC)]” and the Ld. Counsel for the respondent wishes to rely upon a judgement of this Commission in the case of “Narayan Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [RP No. 556 of 2002 decided on 22.05.2007]”. It needs to be appreciated that India Motor Tariff (I.M.T.) had issued regulations. In the case being relied upon by the respondent / complainant the IMT Regulations were effective from till 2002 and Regulation 10 of those IMT Regulations assumed automatic transfer of the Policy in favour of the purchaser but these regulations were modified in the year 2002 and by virtue of Regulation 17 of the amended Regulation no such benefit could be given to the purchaser without having the policy transferred in his favour. Since the Judgement being relied upon by the respondent is based upon the IMT Regulations valid for the period pre 2002, and the instant case is post 2002, hence, the judgement being relied upon by the Respondent will have no bearing on the merits of this case. In a catena of judgement this Commission has held that unless the Insurance Policy has been transferred in favour of the buyer, the buyer will have no insurable interest. We have also held section 157 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act also does not help the case of the respondent / complainant in this case for the simple reason that as clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “New India Assurance Co. Vs. M/s. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. [AIR 1996 SC 586]”, the benefit of section 157 will be given only in case of third party which is not the case here. In view of the well-settled proposition of law, that since no contract existed between the parties before us, the petitioner Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the insured amount. The revision petition is allowed and the complaint is dismissed. However, the complainant would be at liberty to seek remedy before any other fora, if so advised by law for which the time spent before the Consumer Fora can be sought to be exempted under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in the light of the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute {(1995) 3 SCC 583}.”