Registered ownership does not guarantee insurable interest if ownership transfer procedures are incomplete.

1. This appeal by the complainant / appellant is directed against the order dated 11.7.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sagar (for short the ˜District Commission') in CC No.162/2011 whereby the complaint filed by him is dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case as narrated by the complainant are that he is the owner of ˜Tata Indica' car bearing registration No. MH 12 BG - 2047, which is insured with the opposite party for a period w.e.f. 10.9.2009 to 9.9.2010 for an insured declared value of Rs. 1,35,000. In the midnight of 7.11.2009 the subject vehicle, which was being driven by the complainant's driver, met with an accident regarding which a claim was lodged with the opposite party. The opposite party vide letter dated 27.3.2010 repudiated the complainant's claim stating that he has no insurable interest in the matter. Alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party for not giving the insurance claim of the complainant's vehicle, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. The opposite party resisted the complaint stating that the complainant had sold the subject vehicle long before the accident and the vehicle was in possession of the purchaser, when accident took place. Since the complainant ceased to be owner of the said vehicle, he has no insurable interest in the matter.

4. Heard. Perused the record.

5. Learned Counsel for the complainant / appellant Shri Uday Raj Singh Parmar argued that the subject vehicle at the time of the accident was registered in the name of the complainant / appellant. Further more, the complainant / appellant had paid the requisite premium with regard to the insurance policy, which stood in the name of the complainant / appellant at the time of the accident. The complainant / appellant had intimated the Insurance Company regarding the accident and had lodged the claim in aforesaid regard. Learned Counsel argued that the complainant / appellant remained to be the registered owner of the subject vehicle and, therefore, he has insurable interest in the matter. Learned Counsel drew our attention to the expression ˜owner' as defined under S.2 (30) of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 stating that person in whose name motor vehicle is registered would be treated as owner. He relied on the judgments passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar & Ors., II (2018) SLT 44 : I (2018) ACC 549 (SC) : 2018 (4) MPLJ 241 and Surendra Kumar Bhilawe v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , (2020) II CPJ 80 (SC) : IV (2020) SLT 252 : II (2020) ACC 386 (SC)=decided on 18.6.2020 stating that the District Commission has erroneously passed the impugned order and the complainant / appellant deserves the claim amount of the subject vehicle, which had met with an accident.

6. Learned Counsel for the opposite party / respondent, Mr. Pradeep Nighojkar argued that the complainant had sold the subject vehicle to Nilofar Qureshi and steps regarding transfer of the registration of the said vehicle had been initiated by him. The subject vehicle was registered in R.T.O. Pune in appellant's name. The complainant / appellant had applied for issuance of NOC to R.T.O. Pune on 9.1.2008. No Objection Certificate was obtained by R.T.O. Sagar, from R. T.O. Pune on 28.1.2008. However, the transfer of registration could not be done in RTO Sagar because the verification of the subject vehicle was pending. The sale proceeds of the subject vehicle were complete and the vehicle was in possession of Anwar Qureshi, husband of Nilofar Qureshi (who had purchased the subjec