The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the transferee of a vehicle to inform the insurance company within 14 days of the transfer and comply with the provisions of GR-17 of India Motor Tariff for obtaining the benefit of insurance for own damage.

ORDER

Prem Narain, Presiding Member

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner - Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. , against the order dated 07. 07. 2015 passed by the State Commission in First Appeal No. 71 of 2015.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent / complainant purchased the vehicle from the previous owner on 12. 04. 2012. The vehicle was insured by the previous owner w. e. f. 24. 09. 2011 to 23. 09. 2012 for an IDV of Rs. 3,90,000/-. This was a private car package policy. The vehicle was stolen on 20. 05. 2012. The complainant informed the insurance company on 22. 05. 2012. The insurance company appointed a surveyor. The Surveyor submitted its report on 15. 10. 2012 stating that the complainant informed the police only on 31. 05. 2012, i. e. , after 11 days of the theft. It was also observed by the Surveyor that the registration certificate was not transferred in the name of the complainant/respondent on the date of the theft of the vehicle. The claim was repudiated by the insurance company on 25. 10. 2012 on the ground that the complainant did not have any insurable interest as he had no privity of contract with the insurance company.

3. Aggrieved with the repudiation, the complainant filed consumer complaint No. 45/2013. The complaint was resisted by the OP/ petitioner on the basis of the surveyor's report. The District Forum vide its order dated 21. 08. 2014 allowed the complaint as under:-

"In view of the above discussion, present complaint succeeds. We hereby allow the present complaint with a direction to opp. Parties to pay Rs. 3,90,000/- as insured amount with interest @ 9% p. a. , from the date of filing the complaint, till its realization. Cost of litigation quantified at Rs. 2,200/- is also allowed to be paid by opposite parties to the complainant. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of announcement of this order. File be consigned to record after due compliance".

4. Aggrieved, the OP preferred an Appeal bearing No. 71/2015 before the State Commission which was dismissed vide its order dated 07. 07. 2015.

5. Hence this revision petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the complainant had purchased the vehicle from the previous owner on 12. 04. 2012, but he did not intimate about this transfer to the insurance company, nor did he get his name mentioned in the registration certificate, whereas, according to the India Motor Tariff, the complainant was required to get registration in his name, within a period of 14 days and to have filed the application for transfer of insurance in his name. Thus, at the time of incident of theft, neither the policy was issued in the name of the complainant nor the registration was in his name. Thus clearly, the complainant did not have any insurable interest.

8. Moreover, as per the policy conditions, in the case of theft, apart from immediately intimating to the insurance company, the insured is required to inform the police about the theft. This is important so that police and the insurance company may launch joint efforts for tracing the vehicle. In the present case, the police had been informed on 31. 05. 2012 as would be clear from the FIR lodged. Both the fora below have grossly erred in not considering these two points which were very vital for establishing the present insurance claim. It was requested that the revision petition may be allowed and the orders of the fora below be set aside. Though, the complainant is claiming that he deposited the application form for transfer of registration on 17. 05. 2012 and got registration on 23. 05. 2012, but no proof has been submitted when the fees for transfer of RC was deposited, and, therefore, the date of 17. 05. 2012 has been mentioned only to prove that application was made before the incident of theft. The learned counsel further argued that it will not make much difference w