Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member

1.       This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 21/02/2009  passed in consumer complaint no.119/07 Mr.Avinash Chandrashekhar Jadhav and another v/s. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane (the forum, in short). 

2.       It is the case of respondents/org.complainants that Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration no.MH-04-AS-2398 was insured with appellant /original opponent (herein after referred as ‘opponent’) by vehicle owner, complainant no.1-Mr.Avinash Chandrashekhar Jadhav.  He had sold and handed over possession of the vehicle to complainant no.2- Mr.Vikash Appa Gharge on 05/04/2005.  Thereafter, on 30/10/2005, when the complainant no.2-Mr.Vikash Appa Gharge parked the vehicle at Bhandup (Mumbai), it was stolen.  Report of the theft was given to the police on 08/11/2005 and, thereafter, insurance claim was lodged with the opponent.  Same stood repudiated and, feeling aggrieved thereby, this consumer complaint was filed. 

3.       Forum upholding the contention of the complainant and holding that the repudiation was not proper directed opponent to pay compensation of `1,75,000/- along with interest and also cost of `10,000/-.  Feeling aggrieved thereby opponent preferred this appeal.

4.       Heard Mr.D.R.Mahadik-Advocate for the appellant and Mr.S.S. Korde-Advocate for respondents.

5.       Once the vehicle is sold on 05/04/2005 and also given in possession of the purchaser as per provisions of Sale of Goods Act, the vendor of the vehicle, namely, complainant no.1- Mr.Avinash Chandrashekhar Jadhav seized to be owner thereof.  The insurance policy which stood in the name of complainant no.1-Mr.Avinash Chandrashekhar Jadhav was never got changed or transferred in the name of the purchaser. Under the circumstances, when the vehicle was stolen, complainant no.1- Avinash Chandrashekhar Jadhav was no more a consumer in respect of the said vehicle and complainant no.2- Mr.Vikash Appa Gharge was also not a consumer since insurance policy did not stand in his name.  Under the circumstances, ignoring this vital aspect, the forum proceeded further to award the claim and, thus, committed an error of law.  Impugned order cannot be supported with.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-

                                       ORDER

Appeal is allowed.

Impugned order dated 21/02/2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane is hereby quashed and set aside and in the result, the complaint stands dismissed.

Amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of appeal be refunded back to them.

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.