Aggrieved by the orders passed by the fora below, complainant/petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition.  By the impugned order, the fora below have dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner.

          Shortly stated, the facts are :

          Aditya Prasad Jaiswal had purchased a Marshal Jeep on 17.6.1997.  He got the vehicle financed from Ashok Finance Ltd.  The financed amount was to be paid in 10 instalments.  It is not in dispute that Aditya Prasad Jaisawal executed power of attorney in favour of B.K. Roy, the husband of the petitioner authorizing him to look after and operate the said vehicle.  According to the petitioner, her husband paid the instalments to the finance company and after getting hypothecation of vehicle cancelled, got the name of the petitioner recorded in the registration book of the said vehicle from the R.T.O on 12.11.2001.  Petitioner obtained a comprehensive insurance policy on 14.9.2000 for the vehicle from the respondent.  Risk was covered from 14.9.2000 to 13.9.2001.  The jeep met with an accident on 12.11.2000.  Petitioner filed a claim of Rs.1,19,000/- with the respondent insurance company, which was repudiated on the ground that on the date the policy was issued in favour of petitioner by the respondent, petitioner was not the owner of the vehicle.  Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum, vide its order dated 29.4.2004, dismissed the complaint holding that since the vehicle had been transferred in the name of the petitioner on 12.11.2001, the petitioner did not have insurable interest in the vehicle on the date of accident, i.e., 12.11.2000.  

          Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission, upholding the order of the District Forum, has dismissed the appeal by observing thus :

“7. It is not in dispute that the name of the complainant was recorded as owner in registration book on 12.11.2001.  In the absence of any other material to show earlier transfer of vehicle in favor of complainant, it would be presumed that the vehicle stood transferred in her favour on that date i.e. on 12.11.2001.  Admittedly, prior to that date Aditya Prasad Jaisawal was the owner of said vehicle.  The above facts are also borne out from the copies of the registration book filed in the record of District Forum.  It is further not in dispute that the policy was issued on 12.09.2000 and the same covered the risk of said vehicle from 14.09.2000 to 13.9.2001.  Thus the policy was issued prior to the transfer of the vehicle, in favour of complainant.  Thus on the date the policy was obtained by the complainant she had no insurable interest in the vehicle.  Hence, the complainant was not entitled to any benefit under the said policy.  The finding as above of the District Forum appears to be borne out from the material and documents placed on record.” 

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  The policy was issued prior to the transfer of the vehicle, in favour of the petitioner.  On the date the petitioner obtained the policy, she had no insurable interest in the vehicle, as the same had not been transferred in her name.  Petitioner has rightly been held not to be entitled to reimbursement of the loss, as she did not have insurable interest in the vehicle.  Dismissed.