(Per: Mr. D.K. Tyagi, Member):

This is insurer’s appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 01.06.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 400 of 2011.  By the order impugned the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite party to pay the compensation of Rs. 70,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of order.

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant was the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. UP14-Q-5103 Maruti Car.  Previously, Smt. Nishi Rani W/o Sh. Sanjay Tyagi R/o Gautambudh Nagar was the registered owner of this vehicle, which was insured by the opposite party-insurance company.  Smt. Nishi Rani, the registered owner, had purchased a new car in the exchange offer in place of this old car from M/s Rohan Motors, Gautambudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.  The complainant had purchased the aforesaid Maruti Car on 25.01.2010 worth Rs. 85,000/- through Sh. Ajay Bhatia, who is doing a business of sale and purchase of old cars, for which Sh. Ajay Bhatia provided the complainant a receipt and also gave photograph of Registration Certificate and Insurance Policy.  Sh. Ajay Bhatia also promised to provide all the original documents and sale letter from Smt. Nishi Rani, who was out of station and shall come on 15.02.2010. The complainant has stated that he was driving the said vehicle and he has got a driving license, which is valid from 05.11.2003 to 30.06.2018.  As the vehicle was insured with the opposite party, therefore, the opposite party is liable to pay the damages as well as the cost of the vehicle.  The claimant has also filed a claim petition No. 79 of 2010; Uday Vir Singh vs. Divisional Manager and others before the Claim Tribunal, Haridwar and in that claim petition the opposite party-insurance company as well as Smt. Nishi Rani, M/s Rohan Motors and Sh. Ajay Bhatia were made party.  All the parties filed their written statement and Smt. Nishi Rani had admitted the fact of exchange of car from M/s Rohan Motors.  M/s Rohan Motors had also admitted to sale the car to the claimant through Sh. Ajay Bhatia.  The opposite party-insurance company had admitted that the complainant is the owner of the said Maruti Car.  The opposite party in that claim petition also challenged the jurisdiction of the Claim Tribunal.  As the Claim Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the claim petition No. 79 of 2010, therefore, the Court of A.D.J., Roorkee had dismissed the claim petition, as the Claim Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the matter.  The claimant had stated that he was the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident and the said vehicle was insured with the opposite party-insurance company, therefore, the opposite party is liable to pay the compensation.  The complainant is a consumer of the insurance company, therefore, the Forum has jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. 

3.       The opposite party-insurance company filed its written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that it is admitted that the Maruti Car-800 bearing registration No. UP14-Q-5103 was registered in the name of Smt. Nishi Rani and the aforesaid car was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in the name of Smt. Nishi Rani W/o Sh. Sanjay Tyagi R/o A-80, Sector 27, Noida, District Gautambudh Nagar, U.P. for a period of one year from 08.04.2009 to 07.04.2010.  There is no liability arising out of the contract of insurance under the captioned policy of motor insurance as regard to claimant Sh. Uday Vir Singh as such neither the claimant is a party to the contract of insurance under the captioned policy or he is the insured of the captioned vehicle nor the claimant is heirs, executors, administrators of our insured.  Thus, the claimant is not covered by the motor insurance policy in question which has not been transferred in his name.  Hence, the answering opposite party is not liable to pay any amount of compensation under the policy to the claimant.  It is admitted that Smt. Nishi Rani had purchased a new car in exchange of her old Maruti car with M/s Rohan Motors Ltd. in exchange scheme offer.  No documents of the subjected vehicle was handed over by Smt. Nishi Rani to the complainant as alleged in the complaint.  Nothing has been filed by the complainant, with the complaint in support of his version.  It is admitted that intimation of loss regarding the said vehicle was furnished by some person for Nishi Rani, the insured.   The captioned vehicle was insured under the captioned policy under the registered ownership of Smt. Nishi Rani, the insured.  Insurance of the insured vehicle ceased as regard to parties to the contract of insurance as and when the insured vehicle was sold out until and unless the purchaser of the insurance cover of the vehicle alongwith the purchased vehicle has got duly transfer of motor insurance policy in his name by surrendering the original policy and by applying a fresh proposal form to transfer the remaining portion of the policy in his/her name.  There is no liability arising out of the contract of insurance under the captioned policy of motor insurance as regard to claimant Sh. Uday Vir Singh, as such neither the claimant is a party to the contract of insurance under the captioned policy nor he is the insured of the captioned vehicle.  Thus, the claimant is not covered by the motor insurance policy in question as such Sh. Uday Vir Singh, the complainant has no insurable interest, which has not been transferred in his name.  Hence, the answering opposite party is not liable to pay any amount of compensation under the policy to the complainant.  The complainant is not entitled to get any claim from the answering opposite party on account of the alleged loss occurred on 16.02.2010  as such the complainant is not covered by the motor insurance policy in question, which has not been transferred in his name.  The amount claimed Rs. 3,05,850/-  is not only exorbitant, exaggerated, but also unjustified and away from the ground reality and quite disproportionate to damage, if any, sustained by the complainant.  The complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended.  No cause of action has arisen to the complainant for demanding the cost of the said car as well as loss of goods and compensation for mental pain and agony etc.  The complainant had himself admitted in the paragraph No. 3 of the complaint that he had purchased the said old used vehicle from one          Sh. Ajay Bhatia on 25.01.2010.  The answering opposite party has no legal relation with the claimant.  The answering opposite party had made a contract of insurance regarding the vehicle in question with Smt. Nishi Rani who had sold the subjected vehicle to M/s Rohan Motors in exchange of her old used subjected vehicle in lieu of new one, o 31.12.2009 at 7:15 p.m..  After that point of time, PLACE AND DATE INSURED MS. NISHI RANI HAS NO INSURABLE INTEREST IN IT.  AS SUCH ROHAN MOTORS LTD HAD CLEARLY MENTIONED IN DELIVERY RECEIPT THAT “WE ARE TAKING THE DELIVERY OF THIS VEHICLE ON 31.12.2009 AT 7:15 P.M.  WE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS MAINTENANCE, ROAD TAX, INSURANCE, CHALLANS; ANY KIND OF MIS USE AFTER TAKING THE DELIVERY OF THIS VEHICLE.  That during the earlier proceedings of MACT Case No. 79 of 2010 it come to the light that the M/s Rohan Motors Ltd., in turns sold the subjected vehicle to one Mr. Manmeet Singh for Guru Nanak Motors, 19, Civil Lines, Roorkee, District Haridwar on 09.01.2010 and Mr. Manmeet Singh had purchased the said vehicle on WITHOUT INSURANCE COVER AND HE ASSURED TO ROHAN MOTORS THAT “THE SAID VEHICLE HAD BEEN SOLD TO ME WITHOUT INSURANCE COVER AND I SHALL FORTHWITH GET THE VEHICLE INSURED IN MY/OUR NAME”.  The complainant has no insurance cover as well as registration of vehicle in his name at the alleged time and date of the alleged accident.  That no insurance cover of the subjected vehicle was ever purchased by M/s Rohan Motors Ltd. from Mrs. Nishi Rani, the registered owner of the subjected vehicle nor M/s Rohan Motors had ever sold insurance cover to Mr. Manmeet Singh for Guru Nanak Motors, Haridwar on 09.01.2010. The complainant did not take any insurance cover from the answering opposite party as regard to subjected vehicle in question.  The complainant knowingly and deliberately did not make party to Mrs. Nishi Rani, M/s Rohan Motors Ltd. & Mr. Ajay Bhatia in the complaint as he had made them parties in MACT case No. 79 of 2010; Uday Vir Singh vs. Sr. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.  Hence, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  That on the intimation about the alleged accident of the subjected vehicle was furnished to the insurance company on 17.02.2010, the answering opposite party had taken immediate action for deputation of survey on the information of the alleged accident.  The insurance company had deputed Mr. Anil Bansal, an independent and qualified surveyor for inspection and assessment of loss of the captioned vehicle.  The surveyor submitted his report dated 08.03.2009, wherein it was mentioned that “Ms. Nishi Rani, the insured had already sold the car to M/s Rohan Motors Ltd., Noida.  Even the claim intimation was not signed by the insured Ms. Nishi Rani, but was signed by one Sh. Mukesh and she was not having any insurable interest in it.  However, the surveyor has assessed loss in the captioned vehicle and his observation was assessed net loss to the tune of Rs. 64,500/- only.  The insurance company had deputed Mr. R. Choudhary, an independent and qualified investigator to investigate the matter who after investigation submitted his report dated 24.03.2010, wherein it came out that the insured has no insurable interest as on the date of accident. That on the basis of information and documents submitted by the insured as well as on the basis of the survey report and on the basis of the terms and conditions of the policy, the competent authority of the insurance company had found that the claim is not payable under the policy as such the insured had no insurable interest as on the date of accident. Under the circumstances, facts and material available, the competent authority has repudiated the claim and the same was intimated to the insured Ms. Nishi Rani vide letter dated 26.03.2010, therefore, there is no deficiency in services on the part of the answering opposite party.  The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated.  The answering opposite party had never violated the contract of insurance.  The complainant has no right to file the complaint on vague presumption about the policy.  There is no provision to indemnify to any person who has no insurable interest in the vehicle.  The allegations in the complaint are absolutely wrong and false and having no substance.  The present consumer complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law. 

4.       The District Forum on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 01.06.2013 in the above terms.  Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party-insurance company has filed this appeal.

5.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record as well as the written submissions raised by the learned counsel for the complainant-respondent.

6.       There is no dispute regarding the fact that that the Maruti Car bearing registration No. UP14-Q-5103 was registered in the name of Smt. Nishi Rani and the aforesaid car was insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in the name of Smt. Nishi Rani for a period of one year from 08.04.2009 to 07.04.2010. It is also admitted that Smt. Nishi Rani had purchased a new car in exchange of her old Maruti Car from M/s Rohan Motors Ltd. in exchange scheme offer. There is also no dispute that intimation of loss regarding the said Maruti Car was furnished by some person for Smt. Nishi Rani, the insured.

7.       Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Maruti Car in question was insured with the appellant in the name of Smt. Nishi Rani and she had sold the vehicle to M/s Rohan Motors Ltd. on 30.12.2009 in the exchange offer scheme.  The vehicle was registered in the name of Smt. Nishi Rani till the date of accident.  Learned counsel also submitted that the complainant has filed two papers dated 16.02.2010 regarding the transfer of the vehicle whereas as per the intimation given to the insurance company regarding the loss of vehicle, the said vehicle was met with an accident on 16.02.2010 as such there is no insurable interest of complainant in the vehicle at the time of accident.  The insurance company was never informed by the complainant regarding the sale of the vehicle, which is clearly violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.  Learned counsel has submitted that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint, because the vehicle was insured from Delhi and the cause of action also arose at Delhi.  The complainant has also not registered the vehicle in his name after its purchase and the company was never informed by the insured and the complainant regarding the sale of the vehicle.  The complainant as well as the insured has not taken any step to transfer the insurance in the name of complainant, as such there is no insurable interest of the complainant in the vehicle at the time of loss.  There is no contract between the insurance company and the complainant, as such, the insurance company had repudiated the claim of the complainant on genuine ground.  The claimant is not covered by the motor insurance policy in question which has not been transferred in his name.  The insurance of the insured vehicle ceased as regard to parties to the contract of insurance as and when the insured vehicle was sold out until and unless the purchaser of the insurance cover of the vehicle alongwith the purchased vehicle has got duly transfer of motor insurance policy in his name by surrendering the original policy and by applying a fresh proposal form to transfer the remaining portion of the policy in his name.  Learned counsel argued that the claimant is not covered by the motor insurance policy in question, as such the complainant has no insurable interest, which has not been transferred in his name.  The complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended.  No cause of action has arisen to the complainant for demanding the cost of the said car as well as loss of goods and compensation for mental pain and agony.  The complainant did not take any insurance cover from the appellant-insurance company as regard to subjected vehicle in question.  The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated.  There is no provision to indemnify to any person who has no insurable interest in the vehicle.

8.       Learned counsel for the respondent has filed written submission and has submitted that the respondent had purchased a Maruti car on 25.01.2010 worth Rs. 85,000/- at Roorkee, District Haridwar.  This car was purchased from M/s Rohan Motors through one Sh. Ajay Bhatia.  It was told by the seller that the Registration certificate and Insurance shall be obtained from the previous registered owner Smt. Nishi Rani and for that purpose the respondent went to Delhi on 16.02.2010 to obtain the paper of the vehicle.  He received papers from Smt. Nishi Rani and coming back from Delhi, where this vehicle ablazed when fire was broken out in the engine of the vehicle and the engine as well as the goods in the vehicle were burnt.  Learned counsel argued that he had submitted insurance cover, police report, fire report and report of surveyor before the District Forum.  The surveyor has assessed a loss of Rs. 64,500/-.  The appellant in its written statement has admitted before the District Forum that the car in question was covered by the insurance company on the date of accident.  Learned District Forum has observed in the impugned judgment that due to fire in the engine, the vehicle in question burnt completely and the local police was informed and the vehicle was inspected and insurance company was informed, even then the insurance company did not pay the claim amount.  Learned District Forum has also observed that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant from the authorized person of All India Car Dealer Association namely Sh. Ajay Bhatia worth Rs. 85,000/-.  There is no other claimant of this vehicle.  The vehicle was insured from 08.04.2009 to 07.04.2010. Learned District Forum has admitted that the complainant is the purchaser and owner in possession of the vehicle.  The complainant obtained the documents of the vehicle on 16.02.2010 and the vehicle was damaged by fire on the same date.  The vehicle was not in a position to move, therefore, the complainant could not get the registration and insurance of the vehicle in his name. An intimation of the accident was given to the insurance company well within time.  Even then the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant by saying that there is no registration as well as insurance in the name of the respondent-complainant.

9.       The respondent himself has admitted in the consumer complaint as well as in the written submissions that he got the documents of vehicle, i.e. Registration Certificate as well as insurance from the previous owner Smt. Nishi Rani on 16.02.2010 and the vehicle met an accident in Delhi on the same date, therefore, he could not get the registration and insurance in his name.  Therefore, it is very much clear that the respondent was neither a registered owner of the vehicle in question as he did not move the papers before the Registering Authority to get registration in his name and likewise he did not move any application to get the insurance cover transferred in his name after the registration of the vehicle in his name.

10.     Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has cited a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ashok Thakur; I (2014) CPJ 128 (NC).  In this case, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the insurance policy was required to be transferred in the name of transferee on damages of vehicle as per India Motor Tariff Rules applicable from 30.06.2002.  The respondent was entitled to ‘own damages’ of vehicle only if he had applied for transfer of insurance policy in his name within 14 days from date of transfer of registration certificate in his name.  Transfer not done-Repudiation justified.  Learned counsel also cited a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Didar Singh & Anr. vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.; III (2014) CPJ 1 (NC).  In this case, the Hon’ble National Commission has observed that the registration not transferred after sale – Insurable interest – Claim repudiated.  Vehicle was not transferred in the name of purchaser after sale of vehicle.  Handing over of possession amounts to sale and it was obligatory to get the insurance transferred.  The provisions of Section 157 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 not complied with- Repudiation justified. Learned counsel for the appellant has also cited a decision of this State Commission in First Appeal No. 09 of 2009; The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.  vs. Arvind Kumar & Anr.  In this case, this Commission has held that the insurance policy is a contract between the registered owner and insurance company and the insurable interest is always with registered owner of the vehicle.  The registered owner sold his vehicle to his wife, but the insurance policy was not transferred in the name of purchaser-wife.  Under Section 157 (2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it was essential for the purchaser to get insurance cover of the purchased vehicle within 14 days of Registration Certificate in his/her name.  Therefore, in order to avail the benefit under the policy, there has to be a contract between the parties and de facto possession of the vehicle will not cover any legal right on respondent/complainant to avail the benefit under the policy.  In the light of a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. V.C. Deendayal & Others, the State Commission has allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the consumer complaint. These above noted citations are fully applicable in the instant case also.  The complainant is neither the registered owner of the vehicle in question nor he got the insurance policy transferred in his name.  Smt. Nishi Rani had purchased a new car in exchange offer against her old Maruti Car.  She handed over this old car to M/s Rohan Motors Ltd.  Smt. Nishi Rani had filed her written statement in MACT No. 79 of 2010; Uday Vir Singh vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. and Others before M.A.C.T./A.D.J./Fast Track Court, Roorkee, in which she has categorically stated that she had exchanged the new vehicle with her old Maruti car on 31.12.2009.  She does not know, who had purchased this vehicle from M/s Rohan Motors.  In this way also Smt. Nishi Rani has no insurable interest in the vehicle in question. The respondent-complainant has not purchased the vehicle from Smt. Nishi Rani, rather one Sh. Manmeet Singh had purchased this vehicle from M/s Rohan Motors Ltd. and not Sh. Ajay Bhatia.  The respondent is not covered by the Motor Insurance Policy in question, which has not been transferred in his name.  Insurance of the insured vehicle ceased as regard to parties to the contract of insurance as and when the insured vehicle was sold out until and unless the purchaser of the insurance cover of the vehicle alongwith the purchased vehicle has got duly transfer of motor insurance policy in his name by surrendering the original policy and by applying a fresh proposal form to transfer the remaining portion of the policy in his name. The respondent-claimant is not covered by the Motor Insurance Policy in question and has no insurable interest.  Hence, the appellant is not liable to pay any amount of compensation under policy to the respondent. We find force in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company.

11.     The District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has erred in allowing the consumer complaint per impugned order, which cannot legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Consequently, the appeal is fit to be allowed.

12.     For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed.  The impugned judgment and order dated 01.06.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside and the consumer complaint No. 400 of 2011 is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

(MRS. VEENA SHARMA)                                                               (D.K. TYAGI)