ORDER

1.      The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 10.08.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 17/114 in which order dated 29.08.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 204 of 2015 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 10.08.2017 of the State Commission.

2.         While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party) was Respondent before the State Commission in FA/17/114 and Opposite Party before the District Forum in Complaint No. 204/2015.

3.         Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 11.05.2018. Parties filed Written Arguments on 11.10.2023 (Petitioner) and 13.10.2023 (Respondent). Parties also filed documents/compilation of judgements in pursuance to orders dated 12.04.2024 on 03.05.2024 and 16.04.2024 respectively.    

4.         Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that: -

(i)        The Petitioner/Complainant purchased a second-hand Tata Indica Vista car (MH-09-BM-2763) from Mr. Pratap Annasahed Khutale on March 25, 2013, through Shaha Agency in Kolhapur. All documents were submitted to the R.T.O. office for the vehicle transfer, but due to mismanagement, the smart card was delayed due to which timely intimation to the Insurance Company was not done.

(ii)       On April 21, 2013, the car met with an accident on the Railway Bridge of Tamadalge, registered at Jaysingpur Police Station. The vehicle was insured under policy number 162800/31/12/01/0005669 with the insurance company. The Petitioner/Complainant filed a claim and submitted necessary documents, but the insurance company denied the claim, citing the insurance was not in the complainant's name at the time of accident.

(iii)     The complainant incurred costs of Rs.1,67,983/- at Marvelous Motors Pvt. Ltd. The claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company. The complaint was timely filed within the legal limitation period. Upon repudiating the claim of the Petitioner/Complainant, the Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum and District Forum dismissed the complaint on 29.08.2016, and an appeal before the State Commission was also dismissed on 10.08.2017.

5.         Vide Order dated 29.08.2016, in the CC no. 204 of 2015 the District Commission found that neither the Registration Certificate nor in Insurance Policy, name of Petitioner/Complainant is registered/transferred when said vehicle met with an accident hence, the District Forum has rejected the complaint with cost.

6.         Aggrieved by the said Order dated 29.08.2016 of District Commission, Petitioner(s) appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 10.08.2017 in FA No. 17/114 has dismissed the appeal and observed that as per the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, purchaser of vehicle is under obligation to apply for transfer of policy, in his name, so that necessary changes can be carried out. But in the present case it is seen that, thought Petitioner/Complainant applied for transfer of vehicle, he did not follow the provision and therefore, is not entitled to claim any compensation.

7.         Petitioner(s) have challenged the said Order dated 10.08.2017 of the State Commission mainly/inter alia on following grounds:

                          (i)       The State Commission and District Commission have failed to consider that to transfer the insurance it is required to intimate to the