Non-compliance with the provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act and GR-17 led to the complainant not having the locus standi to file the complaint.

ORDER

Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member - Appellant-opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter called the appellants ) have filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 6.11.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short, the District Forum ).

2. Facts in brief are that the respondent No. 1-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant ) purchased truck LPT 2515 bearing registration No. PB-05K-0033, Model 2004 from respondent No. 2 (opposite party No. 3) and has become owner of the truck w.e.f. 17.8.2006. Respondent No. 2 also executed an agreement dated 17.8.2006 and as per this agreement respondent No. 3 (opposite party No. 4) sanctioned the loan of the said vehicle and the balance instalments were to be paid by the complainant. The appellants insured the said vehicle on 22.7.2006.

3. On 15.4.2007, the said truck was parked near O.B.C. Bank in Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib; it was stolen and the complainant lodged the FIR No. 65 dated 16.4.2007 under Section 379, IPC, at Police Station, Gobindgarh and the P.S. Gobindgarh filed the untraceable report dated 20.8.2007. The complainant informed the appellants and also gave notice on 5.4.2008 but the appellants refused to make the payment. The act of the appellants amounts to deficiency in service and prayed that the appellants be directed to pay Rs. 8.25 lacs along with interest and Rs. 50,000 as compensation.

4. The appellants filed the reply by taking objections that the complaint is not maintainable and no insurance policy was taken from Oriental Insurance Co. for vehicle No. PB-05-K-0033. District Forum has no jurisdiction and complicated question of law and facts are involved. Appellants have no privity of contract with the complainant as he is neither insured nor the registered owner of the said truck and has no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it was admitted that the truck bearing No. PB-05K-0033 was insured with the appellants for a sum of Rs. 8,25,000 from 22.7.2006 to 21.7.2007 but the appellants have no liability as there is no contract of insurance with the complainant and the truck in question was insured in the name of Sanjiv Kumar s/o Hans Raj r/o Zira, District Ferozepur. Notice was received and the same was duly replied. Other allegations were denied and prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, the contents of the complaint were admitted and prayed that the complaint be decided accordingly. Respondent No. 3 (opposite party No. 4) was proceeded against ex parte.

6. Learned District Forum after considering the evidence and material placed on file by the parties and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, relying upon the affidavit Ex. C-7 regarding the sale of truck, agreement Ex. C-6 and special power of attorney Ex. C-8, accepted the complaint and directed the appellants to make payment of Rs. 8,25,000 with interest @ 9% from the date of theft till realization. Rs. 30,000 was awarded as compensation.

7. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 6.11.2008, the appellants have filed this appeal.

8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the file and documents placed on record with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties.

9. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the appellants have no privity of contract with respondent No. 1 because neither he was insured nor is registered owner of the truck bearing No. PB-05-K-0033 and the claim was rightly repudiated. Learned District Forum has relied upon affidavit and other documents but neither the truck in question was transferred in the name of respondent No. 1 nor any intimation was given to the Insurance Company regarding the transfer of insurance policy in the name of respondent No. 1 and provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act and GR-17 were not complied with. The order passed by the District Forum cannot be sustained