(Per Justice Mr.S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President) (1) Heard finally at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the parties. This appeal is directed as against the order passed by District Forum, Nashik on 30/03/2010 in Consumer Complaint No.170/09. The appellants are the original opponents where the respondent is an original complainant. We, at this stage, find that in the original complaint, the opponent No.1 to 3 are one of the officers of the Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. sitting at different addresses. The appeal is filed alleging that the appellant, Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. is an aggrieved party. (2) By the impugned order, the appellant officials, original opponents Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to make payment of insurance claim to the complainant of `2,30,876/- and for mental agony, they are further directed to pay an amount of `15,000/-. Validity of this order is under consideration under this appeal. (3) Undisputed facts are as follows: The vehicle No.MH 15 BX 3675 is/was standing in the name of the respondent in the RTO record. In respect of this vehicle, the respondent had taken a comprehensive insurance policy from the appellant which covered a period from 15/07/2008 to 14/07/2009. The said vehicle suffered an accident on 17/10/2008 and therefore it was repaired and repairing bill was/is for an amount of `2,32,998/- and therefore the insurance claim was lodged. It was not accepted by the Insurance Company and therefore, the complainant had filed a complaint claiming repairing expenses of `2,32,998/- and an amount of `20,000/- by way of a mental agony etc. (4) The Insurance Company has repudiated the claim mainly on a ground that the respondent/complainant had suppressed the fact that the said vehicle was transferred by the respondent by a notarized agreement dated 12/10/2007 to one Shirish Chandrakant Nagare and also parted with the possession of the vehicle. The information was collected by the surveyor of the Insurance Company from the office of the RTO. This information surveyor could get from the statement of the persons who were in the vehicle at the relevant time of the accident mainly the members of the family of the purchaser. Before us also, the complainant has not disputed the said notarized documents of the transfer of the vehicle. It is reflected that the parties have themselves decided that the vehicle would be sold and parted with the possession to Shri Nagare but the vehicle’s registration details of change of ownership are yet to be effected in RTO record. (5) We find substance in the contentions of the Insurance Company. Firstly, we read the notarized documents, these documents shows that 51,000/- in cash was paid to the complainant by the said Nagare. The said documents further show that on the date of transaction between the complainant and Nagare, an amount of `6,45,000/- was outstanding against the loan and the vehicle was hypothecated to HDFC. Once the possession of the vehicle was delivered to the transferee, Mr.Nagare on the date of the said receipt, the sale became absolute and ownership of the vehicle gets changed in favour of the transferee. The complainant and the transferee keeping the Insurance Company and HDFC in dark, had parted with the possession of the vehicle. And, thus, from the date of sale of the vehicle, the complainant ceased to be a consumer and the relationship as a consumer and insurance company as a service provider comes to an end. The reasoning given by the District Forum that the vehicle is still standing in the name of the complainant is unjustifiable in the circumstances of the case. We, therefore, find that the order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable under law. We hold accordingly and pass the following order. ORDER (1) The appeal is allowed. (2) The impugned order passed by the District Forum, Nashik is set aside and in the result the Consumer Complaint stands dismissed. (3) The amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal be returned to the appellants after the period of revision is over. (4) Certified copies be furnished to the parties. Pronounced on 9th June, 2011. | 
