By G. Yadunadhan, President:<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant had purchased a Bajaj Boxer Motor Cycle bearing No. KL11/M4307 with Chasis No.DFFBGK 10318 and Engine No. DFMBGK 03163 as per the sale agreement dated 6-5-02 for a consideration of Rs.23250/-. Subsequently the ownership was also transferred. The vehicle was insured with the first opposite party for an amount of Rs.18000/- and the insurance is valid from 12-5-04 to 11-5-05. An amount of Rs.553/- as the premium amount was paid to the first opposite party and the policy No.is M.571102/31/04/6201609. On 22-9-04 at about 8.30 P.M. the vehicle was stolen by somebody. A complaint was registered under Section 379 of IPC as Crime No.575/2004 of Vatakara Police Station. The complainant preferred a claim before opposite party-1. The opposite party-1 refused the claim. The complainant contents that he is the real and actual owner and possessor of the vehicle since the purchase of vehicle on 6-5-02 and theft was made from his possession. The complainant sent a registered lawyer notice on 2-7-05, which was received on 4-7-05. Opposite party-1 neither sent a reply nor made any payment. Since the vehicle was irrecoverably lost by theft the complainant sustained huge harm and loss. The opposite party-1 is liable to indemnify the loss. Hence the claim for an amount of Rs.18000/- being the insured value and Rs.10000/- as compensation for the difficulty and mental agony with cost of proceedings.<br /> <br /> The first opposite party filed a written version, which states the complaint is not maintainable. They have no contractual liability with the complainant at the time of theft. Policy stands in the name of second opposite party. Opposite party-1 is not bound to make good the loss sustained by the complainant who is a stranger to the contract of insurance. Opposite party-1 states that the insured or the complainant who has purchased the vehicle had not intimated the transfer and had not made an application to transfer the insurance policy in the name of the complainant within the prescribed time or even after. The policy bearing No.571102/31/04/6201609 stands in the name of the opposite party-2 who has no insurable interest over the vehicle at the time of theft since he has sold and delivered the vehicle on 6-5-02 and has transferred the R.C. in the name of the complainant on 15-5-04. The complainant has no right whatsoever to claim, for the value of the vehicle since the policy will never be deemed to be transferred unless the insured and the transferee makes an application for the transfer of the policy in the name of the transferee within 14 days of the transfer of the vehicle before the insurer and thereby cause to make an endorsement of novation in the policy in the name of the transferee. The complainant failed to comply with the above mandatory conditions and hence the transferee cannot make any claim for any personal benefit as per the policy. There is no cause of action since there is no contractual liability between the complainant and opposite party-1.<br /> <br /> The second opposite party entered in appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable as per the agreement dated 6-5-02, the vehicle was sold for an amount of Rs.23250/- to the complainant and after to say he has no claim of liability over the vehicle and has no knowledge regarding the subsequent grievance. He is not a necessary party and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from him. <br /> <br /> The only issue is regarding the maintainability of the complaint. No other points are coming for consideration.<br /> Ext. A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of the complainant. No documents produced on behalf of the opposite party’s side.<br /> On going through Ext.A1 document it is clear that the vehicle has been transferred in favour of the complainant on 6-5-02 itself. As per Ext.A2 document it is seen that the vehicle is transferred in the name of complainant only on 15-5-04. The time lag between Ext.A1 document to Ext.A2 document is not at all explained by the complainant. At the same time it is evident through Ext.A3 document that the complainant is paying premium amount in the name of opposite party-2. On going through the version of opposite party-2 and on a perusal of Ext.A1 document it is quite evident that opposite party-2 has handed over all relevant documents in effect of the sale of the vehicle and to get R.C. transferred in the name of complainant. What prevented the complainant approaching the motor vehicle authority to get R.C. transferred in the name of complainant for about three years, reasons are best known to him only. Similarly nothing prevented the complainant from insurance company regarding the legal transfer of ownership of the vehicle in his favour on 15-5-04 and thereafter the complainant has no explanation regarding this aspect. Whereas opposite party contents that the complainant has a statutory obligation through information within 14 days of transfer of vehicle to make novation in the policy. In such circumstances the contention of the opposite party-1 is relying on a decision reported in AIR 1996 by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Page-586 wherein in a similar case “ it was held that in the realm of contract for which there must be an agreement between insurer and the transferee former undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle. In the present case since there was no such agreement and since the insurer had not transferred the policy of insurance in relation there to the transferee the insurer was not liable to make good the damage to the vehicle”. This Forum finds said decision is aptly applicable in this case also. As there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party-1.<br /> <br /> In the result we are of the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable in law, hence the complaint is dismissed with no costs.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court this the 25th day of March 2008.<br /> <br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-<br /> PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Documents exhibited for the complainant.<br /> A1. Agreement<br /> A2. Certificate of Registration in respect of vehicle No.KL.11.M.4307.<br /> A3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.- Schedule of Premium.<br /> A4. Photocopy of the first information report.<br /> A5. Notice to informants under sectiuon 157 (2).<br /> A6. Photocopy of the Lawyer notice dated 2-7-05.<br /> A7. Letter from the Sr. Superintendent of Post Office, Calicut Division.<br /> <br /> Documents exhibited for the opposite party.<br /> Nil.<br /> Sd/- President<br /> // True Copy //<br /> <br /> (Forwarded/By order)<br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.<br />