The central legal point established in the judgment is that ownership of a vehicle under the Sale of Goods Act can influence the settlement of insurance claims, and the terms and conditions of an insurance policy are crucial in determining the liability of the insurer.

Mr. B.K. Taimni, Member—Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency on the part of respondent.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased a Tata Sumo from Dr. Shyam Gambhir, respondent No. 6 on 16.3.1997. At that time, the vehicle was insured with the respondent, validity of which expired on 29.7.1997. The petitioner/the new owner/purchaser of the vehicle, got a fresh policy, covering comprehensive risks given in the policy valid from 10.9.1997 to 9.9.1998. The insured vehicle was burnt by fire on 26.10.1997. Matter was reported to all concerned including the respondent by the petitioner/complainant. Two Surveyors were appointed by the respondent Company. With a view to settle the claim, the respondent asked the petitioner to make them available the Registration Certificate (RC) of the vehicle and salvage, the petitioner could not provide the RC, in the absence of which the respondent closed the case. RC was transferred in the name of the petitioner by the Competent Authority only on 26.2.1998 upon which the petitioner requested to re-open the case, but this plea was not entertained on the ground that the petitioner did not have RC in his name on the date of incident of fire - hence was not the owner of the vehicle under Motor Vehicles Act. On a complaint being filed by the petitioner before the District Forum, it allowed the complaint, but on an appeal filed before the State Commission by the respondent, it allowed the appeal - hence this revision petition.

3. The case of the petitioner is that it is not disputed that under the Sale of Goods Act, he was the owner of the vehicle. It is also not disputed that he held a valid policy from the respondent. All the facts about the status of RC was within the knowledge of the respondent, even then the Insurance Policy was issued. Now the respondent cannot take plea under an untenable ground that since RC was not in the name of the petitioner, he cannot be given relief under the terms of the policy. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent that admitted position is that RC was in the name of respondent No. 6 - the original owner on the date of incident and under the Motor Vehicles Act, he was the owner. Not only this, the petitioner has given wrong information in the proposal form with respect to the ‘Full name of the Registered Owner’ which is given as Haji Wazir Ahmad - which admittedly is not correct as the RC was transferred in his favour only on 26.2.1998, and again against the query in column 6 of the proposal form ‘Full address of the Registered Authorities’ reply given is ARTO Baharaich. Enquiry from this office revealed that the said vehicle was not registered with them. The policy was obtained on wrong information given by the petitioner in the proposal form. Policy was issued in good faith based on information given by the petitioner. Respondent could not be penalized for having acted in good faith. Petitioner was not the owner of the vehicle as per provision of Motor Vehicles Act and the purchaser cannot take advantage of the Policy. For this, the learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company, I (1996) CPJ 1 (SC). Policy was obtained by supplying incorrect information - hence should be held to be of no consequence. There has been no deficiency of service on the part of the respondent - hence the petition needs to be dismissed.

4. We have heard the arguments and perused the material on record. There is no dispute that the said vehicle was sold to the petitioner on 16.3.1997 by the 6th respondent Dr. Gambhir. In Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. @ Thankachan & Ors., VI =2001 VIII AD (SC) 168, Hon’ble Supreme Court had held—

“....High Court was not right in holding that the appellant continued to be the owner as the name had not been changed in the records of R.T.O. There can be tra