IMPORTANT POINT
Vehicle can be transferred only in accordance with prescribed procedure.

S.C. Vyas, President— The OP/Insurance Company, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited; feeling aggrieved by order dated 26.3.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhamtari (C.G.) (hereinafter called ‘District Forum’ for short), passed in Complaint Case No. 919/2011, has preferred this appeal before us.

2. The facts of the case are that a vehicle Toyota Camry Car bearing registration No. DL-1-Z-1542 was of the registered ownership of

M/s Abercrombie and Kent India Pvt. Ltd. The said Company purchased an insurance policy from the appellant/Insurance Company for a period between 19.5.2010 and 18.6.2011.The case of the respondent/complainant before District Forum was that he purchased that vehicle from the registered owner on 28.2.2011 and after purchase on 11.4.2011, the vehicle suffered an accident and was damaged on account of fire which was probably because of short circuiting in the engine. Intimation of the incident was given to the police and Insurance Company. A Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company, who assessed loss, but the Insurance Company failed to pay any amount to the respondent/complainant on the ground that respondent/ complainant was not having any insurable interest on the insured vehicle and therefore the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount to him. Then, the complainant filed consumer complaint before District Forum. The defence of the Insurance Company before District Forum was the same that the vehicle in question was purchased by the respondent/complainant on 28.2.2011 and thereafter under the provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 within 14 days, old and new owners of the vehicle were required to apply to the Insurance Company for change of name of the insured after depositing requisite fees. This was not done by them and no application was ever moved before Insurance Company till date of accident, therefore the appellant/Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount to the respondent/complainant.

3. Learned District Forum, in the impugned order in paragraph No. 13 has held that after sale of the vehicle, neither the registered owner had informed the Insurance Company in the prescribed proforma regarding the fact of sale of the vehicle nor the respondent/complainant moved any application before Insurance Company to issue insurance policy in his name. Even after this finding, by observing that original registered owner of the vehicle was not having any objection for payment of amount of compensation to the respondent/complainant, the appellant/Insurance Company has been directed to pay compensation on account of loss to the insured vehicle at least on non-standard basis to the respondent/complainant and thus the complaint was allowed in part against the appellant/Insurance Company.

4. We have heard arguments advanced by both parties and perused the record of the District Forum.

5. As observed by District Forum in paragraph No. 13 of the impugned order, there appears no material to show that after sale of the vehicle in question on 28.2.2011 within a period of 14 days in compliance of provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, neither the registered owner of the vehicle had ever informed the appellant/Insurance Company regarding the fact of transfer of the vehicle nor there is any material to show that any request was ever made by the previous owner of the vehicle or the new owner for transferring the name of the insured in the insurance policy or to issue a fresh insurance policy in the name of new owner. Thus, it appears that there was no contract of insurance between present respondent/complainant and the appellant/Insurance Company. When there was no contract of insurance between respondent/complainant and the appellant/Insurance Company, then if a claim was preferred by the respondent/complainant before appellant/Insurance Company and it has been rejected by the appellant/Insurance Company on the ground th