IMPORTANT POINT
Transfer of Insurance Policy - As the complainant has failed to transfer the Insurance policy in his name from earlier owner of the vehicle, therefore, he cannot claim any compensation from the opponent No. 2 on the basis of the earlier Insurance policy though it was valid.

ORDER

S.P. Tavade, President—Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order dated 11/08/2017 passed by the Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Commission, Mumbai Suburban District in consumer complaint No. RBT/CC/11/599 the original opponent No. 2 has preferred present appeal. Parties to this appeal shall be called and referred to as per their status in the original complaint. The facts giving rise to the present appeal in brief can be summarised as under-

2. Complainant was the owner of vehicle - Scorpio VLX having registration No.MH-04-DJ 9720. He obtained loan from opponent No. 1 to purchase the said vehicle. It was contended that the complainant purchased the vehicle through agent Shri.Bodke from opponent No.3- Smt.Sanjivani Kadam. It was insured with the opponent No.2 for the period between 02/01/2011 to 01/01/2012. After purchasing the vehicle complainant had been to Shastri Nagar, Goregaon on 26/04/2011. The vehicle was stolen from Shastri Nagar. Complainant lodged FIR and intimation of the theft was given to the opponent No. 2-Insurance Company. It was contended that opponent No.1 had assured that it would take steps for transfer of Insurance Policy in the name of the complainant. But no steps were taken by the opponent No. 1. It was contended that the complainant had purchased the vehicle for Rs.9 lakhs. Hence, complainant claimed compensation of Rs.9 lakhs. Complainant filed claim application for price of the vehicle from the opponent No.2. But the opponent No.2 repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant had no insurable interest in the vehicle. Hence, complainant filed complaint and claimed price of the vehicle amounting to Rs.9 lakhs, compensation of Rs.6 lakhs and costs of Rs.30,000/-.

3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opponent No.1. Opponent No.1 filed written version and denied that it had undertaken to transfer the Insurance policy from the original owner to the complainant. Opponent No.1 had admitted that it had given loan to the complainant to purchase the vehicle.

4. Opponent No.2 filed written version and denied the allegations made in the complaint. It was contended that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the opponent No. 2. It was contended that the Insurance policy of the vehicle was not transferred in the name of the complainant. Therefore, there was no question of any indemnity in favour of the complainant. It was also contended that the vehicle was sold by the opponent No. 3-Smt. Sanjeevani Kadam to the complainant on 05/04/2011 without any information to the opponent No.2. It was also contended that there was no insurable interest existed at relevant time when vehicle was transferred in favour of the complainant. It was contended that the complainant ought to have had applied for transfer of the Insurance policy in his name within 14 days from the date of transfer that is 05/04/2011. It was contended that there was no contract therefore there is no question of any indemnity.

5. Opponent No.3 was duly served with the notice but failed to file the written version. Hence, complaint was proceeded without written version against Opponent No.3.

6. Complainant, opponent No.1 and 2 filed affidavits of evidence and documents on record.

7. Considering the evidence adduced on the record, the District Commission held that the complainant had committed error of non transfer of the Insurance policy in his name. Therefore, the claim was allowed on non standard basis and directed the opponent No.2 to pay 70% amount of policy with interest @ of 9% p.a. from 07/01/2012. Said order is under challenge.

8. Heard arguments advanced by the Advocates for both the parties. Appellant/opponent No.2 has challenged the impugned Order on the ground that complainant did not allege any deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent No. 2 and secondly there was no insurable interest of the complainant in the vehicle. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant