JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

       The petitioner/complainant namely Mr. V.A. Sreekumar owned a vehicle bearing registration No. KL-7BA-835 which he had got insured with the respondent New India Insurance Company Ltd.  On 07.04.2006, he entered into a transaction with one Mr. John Mathew.  The said transaction was reduced in the form of a sale agreement, an English translation of which, as filed by the petitioner/complainant reads as under:

         “The vehicle KL7 BA 835, 2005 model Leyland double axle lorry which is in the absolute ownership and possession of the first party is sold to the second party, out of which from the sale price an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) is received by the first party and the vehicle without platform is given possession today.

         As the vehicle is under Hypothecation to Palarivattom Kotak Mahindra Bank and the first party has remitted three installments, the second party shall pay the balance hypothecation liability, hereafter with future interest and settle the liability.

         In the event of the finance company agreeing for transfer of ownership, the first party agree to complete all the procedures for the registration in favour of the second party.

        The first party shall be liable for all liability and proceedings before the department till today and in the event of any liability/proceedings before the department hereafter, the second party shall be liable.”

          It would thus be seen that the vehicle in question was sold by the petitioner/complainant to Mr. John Mathew on 07.04.2006 for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- which he had duly received from the buyer.  It is also evident from the document that the possession of the vehicle was delivered to the purchaser Mr. John Mathew who undertook to pay the balance installments payable to the financer.  

2.   The vehicle having been stolen on 09.09.2006, more than five months after the aforesaid transaction, a claim was lodged by the petitioner/complainant with the insurer for reimbursement of the insurance policies which he had taken from the respondent.  The claim having been rejected, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.  The complaint having been dismissed, he approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  The said appeal also having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 10.08.2017, the complainant/petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

3.      It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant that the sale transaction was not complete as the vehicle stood in the name of the complainant/petitioner in the record of the concerned licensing authority on the date it was stolen. 

4.      Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act to the extent it is relevant provides that where there is a contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods, the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred. For the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the par