IMPORTANT POINT
It is only in respect of third party risks that Section 157 of Motor Vehicles Act provided that certificate of insurance together with policy of insurance shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of transferee of vehicle.

K.C. Gupta, President — Briefly stated the facts are that Sh. Kewal Singh, complainant purchased a vehicle TATA make bearing No. HR-37-A-4269 from one Jasbir Singh son of Shri Mohinder Singh, resident of House No. 1068, Sector-10, Panchkula, in the year 2003 and got transferred the registration certificate in his name with effect from 6-8-2003. The copy of the registration certificate is annexure C-1. The said vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vide insurance policy No. 31/5232 which was valid from 17-2-2003 to 16-2-2004. The photocopy of the insurance cover dated 15-2-2003 is annexure C-3.

2. It was next averred that an accident took place in between vehicle No. HR-37-A-6069 and a scooter on 24-8-2003 and FIR bearing No. 169 of 2003 under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was got registered in Police Station, Sadar, Rohtak. Vehicle No. HR-37-A-4269 also overturned at the spot in order to save the scooter and was badly damaged. At the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by its driver Sukhwinder Singh, who was having a valid driving licence. The copy of the FIR is annexure C-2.

3. It was further averred that the insurance cover note of the said vehicle was issued initially in the name of Jasbir Singh on 15-2-2003 for the commencement of the policy from 17-2-2003 and was to expire on 16-2-2004. It was next averred that the complainant Kewal Singh suffered a loss of Rs. 1,20,000/- due to accident and the claim was duly lodged with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., but it was rejected by the insurance company on 16-2-2003 on the ground that no insurable interest existed at the time of accident in favour of Kewal Singh. Feeling dissatisfied, the complainant had given a legal notice but the insurance company did not reply.

4. With these allegations, complaint for making payment of Rs. 1,20,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. besides Rs. 25,000/- as compensation was filed on 3-6-2005.

5. Respondents (opposite parties in the complaint case) contested the complaint and filed written reply. They took certain preliminary objections; that the Forum had got no jurisdiction to try the complaint as there was no deficiency on their part; that the policy of insurance was obtained by Jasbir Singh and was valid for the period from 17-2-2003 to 16-2-2004 and the accident took place on 24-8-2003. Jasbir Singh gave information on 28-2-2003 vide annexure R-1 but the complaint was filed by one Kewal Singh; that the surveyor M/s. Pee Kay & Co. was appointed who assessed the loss of Rs. 40,450/- vide annexure R-3 and R-3/A. He also pointed out that the vehicle had been transferred with effect from 6-8-2003 in the name of Mr. Kewal Singh, complainant and as the insured Jasbir Singh was not having insurable interest on the date of accident, so, claim was repudiated vide letter dated 16-12-2003-annexure R-4; that Kewal Singh never lodged any claim with the company; that there was no privity of contract between Kewal Singh and then as after having purchased the vehicle, the policy of insurance was not got registered in his favour and no claim is payable to Kewal Singh as per G.R. 17 of the India Motor Tariff. On merits, they denied the allegations of the complainant and stated that India Motor Tariff had already been revised with effect from 1-7-2002 and G.R. 17 is applicable to the facts of the case and Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act was only applicable to third parties claim and not to the complainant and thus claim was rightly repudiated. So, they prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

6. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits.

7. After hearing counsel for the parties, vide order dated 29-11-2005,

the District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh accepted the complaint and awarded compensation of Rs. 41950/- in all i.e. 40450/- for repair of the vehicle, Rs. 1000/- as compensation for delay in settling the claim and Rs. 550/- as litigation costs. The respondents were directed to make payment within 30