Petitioner (since deceased) is being now represented through legal representatives.

          Oriental Insurance Company Limited, petitioner herein, was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Respondent/complainant purchased truck from Ram Rattan and Sunil Kumar on 25.12.2002 and took possession of the vehicle after making full payment.  Ram Rattan and Sunil Kumar transferred

-2-

the said vehicle in favour of the respondent on 15.4.2003.  The entry in the Registration Certificate was yet to be made.  The said truck met with an accident on 03.3.2003 causing extensive damage which according to the petitioner, was to the tune of Rs.2 Lacs.  Respondent filed an insurance claim with the petitioner insurance company.  Petitioner appointed a Surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs.60,956/-.  Later on, petitioner repudiated the claim on the ground that the respondent did not have an insurable interest in the vehicle as the policy had not been transferred in his name and continued to be in the name of the original owner.  Respondent, thereafter, filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.60,956/- assessed by the Surveyor along with interest @ 9% p.a. within one month after submission of the report by the Surveyor, till payment and Rs.500/- were awarded as costs.

          Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission              which has been dismissed by the impugned order relying upon the

-3-

provisions of Section 157 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 without noticing the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Complete Insulations v. New India Assurance Company Limited reported in AIR 1996 SC  586” in which it has held that the benefit of Section 157 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be given in case of 3^rd party risk only and not in the case of owner’s risk.  Present case is of owner’s risk and not 3^rd party risk. 

Hon’ble Supreme Court, while interpreting Section 157 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Complete Insulations Private Limited case (supra), held as under:

            “10. There can be no doubt that the said chapter provides for compulsory insurance of vehicles to cover third party risks. Section 146 forbids the use of a vehicle in a public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of that vehicle a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of that chapter. Any breach of this provision may attract penal action. In the case of property, the coverage extends to property of a third party i.e. a person other than the insured. This is clear from Section 147(1)(b)(i) which clearly refers to ’damage to any property of a third party’ and not damage to the property of the ’insured’ himself. And the limit of liability fixed for damage to property of a third party is rupees six thousand only as pointed out earlier. That is why even the claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 is invested with jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damage to any property of a third party so arising, or both. Here also it is restricted to damage to third party property and not the property of the insured. Thus, the entire chapter XI of the New Act concerns third party risks only. It is, therefore, obvious that insurance is compulsory only in respect of third party risks since Section 146 prohibits the use of a motor vehicle in a public place unless there is in relation thereto a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of Chapter XI. Thus, the requirements of that chapter are in relation to third party risks only and hence the fiction of Section 157 of the New Act must be limited thereto. The certificate of insurance to be issued in the prescribed form (See Form 51 prescribed under Rule 141 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989) must, therefore, relate to third party risks. Since the provisions under the New Act and the Old Act in this behalf are substantially the same in relation to liability in regard to third parties, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was right in the view it took based on the decision in Kondaiah’s case because the transfer-insured could not be said to be a third party quo the vehicle in question. It is only in respect of third party risks that Section 157 of the New Act provides that the certificate of insurance together with the policy of insurance described therein "shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred". If the policy of insurance covers other risks as well, e.g., damage caused to the vehicle of the insured himself, that would be a matter falling outside Chapter XI of the New Act and in the real, of contract for which there must be an agreement between the insurer and the transfer, the former undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle. In the present case since there was no such agreement and since the insurer had not transferred the policy of insurance in relation thereto to the transfer, the insurer was not liable to make good the damage to the vehicle. The view taken by the National Commission is therefore correct.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

          This view has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “G. Govindan v. National Insurance Company Limited reported in (1999) 3 SCC 754”.

          For the reasons stated above, as the order passed by the State Commission runs to the contrary the observations made by           Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same is set aside.  Order of the State Commission as well as that of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.

-6-

            Under our directions, petitioner deposited sum of Rs.60,956/- with permission to the respondent to withdraw the same.  Respondent has withdrawn Rs.60,000/-.  He is directed to return the same to the petitioner but without any interest within six weeks.