IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution:13.10.2023 Date of Hearing: 18.12.2025 Date of Decision: 30.03.2026 FIRST APPEAL NO. – 541/2023 IN THE MATTER OF NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., (THROUGH THEIR AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY), N.H-5/R-2, NEAR B.K. CHOWK, NIT, FARIDABAD, HARYANA-121001.

(Through: Mr. D.N. Singhal, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS

1. MR. YOGESH BASOYA S/O MR. JAI PRAKASH BASOYA, 195/5A, RAMESH MARKET, GARHI SRINIWASPURI, SOUTH DELHI, DELHI-110065.

2. MR. SONU KUMAR S/O MR. DHEERAJ, H.NO.132, JHUTIA-MOHALLA, BARAULEE, PALWAL, HARYANA – 121102.

(Through: Meenakshi Mohan & Associates)

…Respondents CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: Mr. D. N. Singhal, Counsel for the Appellant.

None for the respondent.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The present Appeal has been preferred under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the impugned order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – South Delhi – I, in Consumer Complaint No. 101/2020 whereby the District Commission has dismissed the application of the Appellant/ Opposite Party in the following terms:

“An application has been filed by the counsel of the OP that the complaint filed is untenable and infructuous as there is no insurable interest between the complainant as well as OP. OP has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Anand Sarup Sharma vs. PP. Khurana passed in September 1988 wherein single judgment of the Delhi High Court agreed with the decision of full bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Madneni Kondaiah Vs. Yaseen Fatimah 1986 ACJ 1 (AP).

It is stated that registration certificate is a very important certificate of revenue to show the ownership of the vehicle which the person making the application is required to produce at the time of inspection of his vehicle and is not allowed to drive unless the vehicle is in his name transferred in his name. OP also placed his reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Panna Lal Chand Mal 1980 ACJ (233) SC and on the judgment of Hon'ble NCDRC in MohdIshakbhai Timbiwalka Vs. TATA AIG in the year 2015 wherein 157 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and GR 17 of Indian Motor Tariff were considered and it was held "It is clear that if ownership of the vehicle is transferred during the currency of insurance policy, the transferee, if he get the insurance certificate and policy transferred in his name, he is required to move an application in writing along with the consent of the transferer in this regard. Admittedly, in the instance case till the expiry of the insurance contract, no application was transferred of insurance policy in favour of the petitioner transferer was moved and insurance too in the name of original consumer, who has not been arrayed as a party in the consumer complaint. Therefore, in our view, the State Commission has rightly concluded that there was no privity of contract between the parties and dismissed the complaint. There being no privity of contract between the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim.

Reply has been filed by the complainant to this application.

It is stated that the complainant No. 2 has paid the premium of the policy which was in the process of transfer as complainant No.2 had informed the OP. It is stated that the complainant asked him to provide certain documents to complete the process and which can be clarified by the mails which are in touch with the complainant. It is stated by the complainant that as per section 157(2) of the MV Act, 1988 the transferee can apply within 14 days from the date of transfer for making necessary changes in regard to the certificate of insurance and in the present case the vehicle was transferred by Complainant No. 1 on 11.11.2017 and vehicle got stolen on 19.11.2017 i.e. within nine days.

This Commission is of the view that since