IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 22.10.2014 Date of hearing: 15.11.2022 Date of Decision: 01.03.2023 FIRST APPEAL NO.- 1011/2014 IN THE MATTER OF M/S A.M. MOTORS, Rampura, New Delhi- 110026 (Through: Mr. Tripat Singh & Mr. Rattan Chand, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS

1. M/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., FF Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi – 110001.

2. MS. KULJIT KAUR W/o late S. Uttam Singh

6/4 GF South Patel Nagar, New Delhi- 110001.

3. MR. DAVINDER KUMAR s/o Mr. Mahinder Pal Sharma, 48A Anand Nagar, Inderlock, Delhi- 110035. …Respondents CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)

Present: Mr. Ravinder Singh, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Vinay Ranjan, proxy counsel for Mr. Amandeep Singh, counsel for the respondent PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are:

“Brief facts as laid out from the complaint are that the complainant herein contacted Respondent No.3 for purchasing the Tata 407 vehicle bearing registration No. DL1LK4047 which was agreed to be purchased by the complainant for a sum of RS.5lacs which was registered in the name of Respondent No.2 and was insured with Respondent No.1. The complainant made the payment of RS.4.5lacs to Respondent No.3 and the balance payment was to be made after the transfer of R.C. and insurance policy in his name. On 31.8.10 vehicle was stolen by unknown persons. FIR No. 296/10 was registered u/s 379 IPC, police station Moti Nagar on 18.9.10 and intimation of theft was send to the insurance company. A surveyor was appointed by Respondent No. 1. On 11.9.11 untrace report was prepared by investigating officer Mewa Ram and filed in the court of Sunil Kumar Sharma, MM, Tishazari. He lodged the claim with Respondent No.1 but his claim was not settled. Hence, he approached this forum with a prayer to pass an award of R.4.5lacs alongwith interest in his favour and against the respondents.”

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 05.09.2014, whereby it held as under:

“In view of the findings of the investigator, we find that the complainant did not disclose the true facts before the forum and similarly Respondent No. I also did not clarify that the claim was lodged with them by Respondent No.2 and not by the complainant. However, it is an admitted fact that the vehicle was insured on the date of theft. The complainant was nowhere at fault in the given facts and circumstances because he made the part payment to Respondent No.3 and took the delivery of the vehicle and balance payment was yet to be made by him on getting R.C. and insurance policy transferred in his name. Respondent No.2 probably signed the blank delivery challan and form 29th and 30th in which particulars of Mr. Rajesh Kapoor were filled in later on. This is the market practice of commission agent dealing in the sale and purchase of vehicle getting these documents signed in blank from the seller and the vehicle is transferred in the name of person whosoever is the final purchaser. In this case within one month the vehicle changed four hands and hence before transfer of the vehicle in the name of the complainant, theft took place. The complainant has suffered a loss of Rs 4.5lacs for no fault of his. But in this complaint no relief can be granted to him against the insurance company as there was no privity of contract between him and the insurance company, no claim was lodged by him and his claim was never repudiated by the insurance company. The actual dispute is between him and Respondent No.3 who sold the vehicle to him and received the payment without having any legal authority to sell this vehicle to the complainant.

Considering entire facts and circumstances we hereby dismiss this complaint and give liberty to the complainan