Insurable interest exists where the registered owner at the time of the accident is entitled to claim under the insurance policy.

1. The appellant / original opponent No. 1 has filed present appeal under S.41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Junagadh dated 11.9.2019 in complaint No. 45 of 2016.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. D.M. Soni, for the appellant.
2.1. The appellant is the original opponent No. 1, respondent No. 1 is original complainant and respondent No. 2 is original opponent No. 2 in this appeal. Hereinafter the appellant and respondents will be referred as per their original status.

3. Facts of the case of the complainant: The complainant has obtained commercial vehicle policy for his truck bearing registration No. GJ - 11 - Y - 6325 from opponent No. 1 through opponent No. 2. Opponent No. 1 has issued the commercial vehicle policy for the period between 18.11.2014 to 17.11.2015 vide policy No. OG - 15-2218-1903-00000065 for the sum insured of Rs.14,88,254 in favour of complainant. During the existence of policy on 10.9.2015 while the truck was driven by driver was met with an accident with ST bus Nr. Vadodara Padra Road. The truck was damaged and front side of the truck is broken, the radiator, bumper and both sides of the cabin are broken, the wiring, pipes, steering and air filters are also broken and truck was damaged upto Rs.2,75,210. That the complainant has submitted the claim to the opponent No. 1 through opponent No. 2 with required documents. Opponent No. 1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide its repudiation letter dated 24.11.2015. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint before the District Commission for Redressal of his grievances.

4. Order under challenge: The District Forum has partly allowed the said complaint on 11.9.2019 and ordered the opponents to pay Rs.1,44,560 (Rupees One Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Only) as compensation / damage with 9% interest from 24.11.2015, Rs.5,000 towards mental harassment and Rs.3,000 as cost to the litigation.

5. Argument of the appellant:
5.1 Learned Advocate for the appellant has argued that the impugned order is unjust, arbitrary and against the well established principles of law and facts on record.
5.2 It is further argued that the learned District Commission has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law and does not given any independent finding over the respondent's burden of providing deficiency in service. That the without appreciating the real issue in dispute, learned District Commission has jumped to a conclusion that the appellant displayed deficiency of service. That the order of the learned District Commission is erroneous on law and facts and ignored S.20 and S.26 of the sale of the goods Act. That the vehicle was sold by the complainant to other person. That there was agreement between the parties. The said agreement was not considered by the ld. District Commission. That the complainant was no insurable interest on the date of accident.
5.3 It is further argued that the learned District Commission has not considered the documentary evidence in proper perspective. The judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Commission is required to be quash and set aside. He requested to allow the appeal.

6. Merits of the case:
The claim was repudiated and the same statement is made in the written conversation of the affidavit at page 67 filed by the Deep U. Dave, Manager of the Insurance Company which reads as under:
"On scrutiny of documents submitted by your good self, it is observed that at the time of accident, the Insurance policy and vehicle