The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurance Company cannot absolve itself from liability to indemnify the insured registered owner if the ownership has not been transferred, as highlighted under Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 and Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, Presiding Member—The present appeal has been filed by Mr. Sunil & Mr. Rakesh Jindal, the appellants/complainants (hereinafter referred to as "the complainants") against the judgment dated 22.08.2014 of the learned District Consumer Redressal Forum, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as "the DCF") in complaint No. 423/2008 titled Sunil and ors. v. National Insurance Company and ors., whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Mr. Sunil, the complainant No. 1 is registered owner of car No. DL-4-CL-0703, which was insured with the Insurance Company for a period from 11.04.2007 to 10.04.2008 for an insured declared value (IDV) of Rs. 80,000/-. Mr.Rakesh Jindal, the complainant No. 2 intended to purchase the said car and took it on 30.05.2007 to Bayana, the place of posting of his father. The said car was parked at the police station Bayana, but during the Gurjar Agitation, the miscreants set the police station on fire and the said car was also burnt. A claim was submitted by complainant No. 2, but the same was not settled and hence, the complaint was filed, which was dismissed on the ground that the said car was sold by the complainant No. 1, the registered owner to complainant No. 2 and the later had no insurable interest in the vehicle.

3. The present appeal has been filed by the complainants on the ground that the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts, evidence and settled principles of law. The complainant No. 1 is the registered owner and the insurance policy is also in his name and therefore, Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the complainants against the total loss of the vehicle. Therefore, the present appeal and the complaint be allowed.

4. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and carefully perused the record, evidence and impugned judgment.

5. It is an admitted fact that Mr. Sunil, the complainant No. 1 is the registered owner of the car No. DL-4-CL-0703 and the same is insured with the Insurance Company for a IDV of Rs. 80,000/- for a period from 11.04.2007 to 10.04.2008. The car was taken by Mr. Rakesh Jindal to Bayana on 30.05.2007 i.e. during the currency of the insurance policy and the said car was burnt to ashes by the miscreants during Gurjar Agitation at police station Bayana. A claim was submitted by complainant No. 2 before the Insurance Company and Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma, the Surveyor assessed the loss to the extent of Rs. 69,500/-, but the Insurance Company vide it's letter dated 21.02.2008 (Annex.1) repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle was sold by Mr.Sunil, the registered owner to Mr.Rakesh Jindal in the year 2004 and Mr.Jindal did not have any insurable interest in the vehicle as the insurance policy was not transferred in his name. The claim was also repudiated on the ground that the car did not bear the chasis number and a gas kit was fitted in it, which were the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.

6. It is admitted fact that Mr.Sunil, the complainant No.1 is the registered owner and the insurance policy of the car is also in his name. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company alleges that Mr.Sunil had sold the car to Rakesh Jindal way back in 2004 vide form No. 29 and 28 (Annex.8 and 9) respectively. It is evident from these documents, they do not bear any date on which the car was allegedly sold to Mr.Rakesh. We are of the view that unless and until the registration of the car is transferred in the name of Rakesh Jindal, the complainant No. 2, the ownership of the vehicle vests in the original registered owner i.e. Mr.Sunil and merely on the basis of form No. 29 and 28 (Annex.8 and 9), it cannot be held or concluded it that the vehicle was sold to Mr.Jindal. As per the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 2728/2014 (Prem Devi v. M/s Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd.) decided on 03.03.2015, the Insurance Comp