Mr. Justice V.K. Agrawal, President—This appeal, under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 24.9.2004 in Complaint No. 386/2002 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jagdalpur (hereinafter called “District Forum” for short) dismissing the appellant’s complaint.

2. Indisputably a Marshal Jeep bearing registration No. M.P. 25/B/0804 was purchased on 17.6.1997 by Aditya Prasad Jaisawal. The said purchaser obtained finance from Ashok Finance Ltd. The finance amount was to be paid in 10 instalments. It is also not in dispute that the said Aditya Prasad Jaisawal, executed a power of attorney in favour of B.K. Roy, the husband of the complainant/appellant, authorizing him to look after and to operate the said vehicle.

3. The complainant’s averments were that the complainant’s husband B.K. Roy paid the instalments to finance company and after getting hypothecation of vehicle cancelled, got the name of his wife Pratima Roy recorded as owner in the registration book of the said vehicle by the R.T.O., Jagdalpur. It was further averred that the comprehensive insurance of the vehicle was obtained in the name of complainant from the respondent/insurer. By the said policy the risk of the said vehicle was covered from 14.9.2000 to 13.9.2001. It was also averred that the vehicle met with an accident on 12.11.2000 and was damaged. The complainant, therefore, claimed damages amounting to Rs. 1,19,000 from the respondent/insurer. However, since the respondent/insurer repudiated the said claim by its letter dated 24.10.2001, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

4. The respondent/insurer resisted the complaint. The averments in brief were that the vehicle was purchased by Aditya Prasad Jaisawal on hire purchase. It was further averred that the complainant obtained the insurance policy by misrepresentation without showing the registration book, etc. It was further averred that on the date the insurance policy was issued by the respondent/insurer in favour of complainant Pratima Roy, she was not the owner of the vehicle and, therefore, had no insurable interest therein. Therefore, she was not entitled to the benefit under the policy.

5. The District Forum in the impugned order upheld the contentions of respondent/insurer and has recorded a finding that on the date, insurance policy was issued the complainant was not the owner of the vehicle. Hence, she had no insurable interest therein. Therefore, the disclaimer of complainant’s claim by the respondent/insurer did not amount to deficiency in service. The complaint was accordingly dismissed.

6. Submission of the learned Counsel for the parties were heard. Record perused.

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 favour 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 12.9.2000 and the same covered the risk of said vehicle from 14.9.2000 to 13.9.2001. Thus the policy was issued prior to the transfer of 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.

8. In view of foregoing discussion no interference in the impugned order is called for. This appeal has no substance. It is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

–––