ORDER Justice P.S. Rana (R) President. —Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order passed by District Forum in consumer complaint No. 164/2012 title Bhagat Ram v. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited & Ors. decided on 18.06.2016 . Brief facts of Case: 2. Complainant Bhagat Ram filed complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant purchased second-hand bus No. HP-69A-7719 Ashoka Leyland from previous owner namely Sanjeev Thakur s/o Shri Sada Ram. It is pleaded that complainant applied for transfer of ownership of bus No. HP-69A-7719 before registering authority in the month of September 2011. It is pleaded that registering authority issued transfer of ownership certificate annexure C-2 placed on record. It is further pleaded that vehicle met with accident on dated 12.10.2011. It is further pleaded that vehicle was insured with insurance company for Rs.770000/- (Seven lac seventy thousand). It is pleaded that total premium to the tune of Rs. 12541/- (Twelve thousand five hundred and forty one) was paid for IDV of vehicle. It is further pleaded that claim application was filed before insurance company but insurance company repudiated claim vide annexure C-5 on dated 30.12.2011 on the ground that at the time of accident registered owner of insured vehicle was Bhagat Ram and insurance policy was issued in the name of Sanjeev Thakur. It is pleaded that repudiation of claim on behalf of insurance company is illegal. It is further pleaded that insurance company has committed deficiency in service after receiving premium of insurance amount and prayer for acceptance of complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It is pleaded that insurance policy was issued in the name of previous owner Sanjeev Thakur. It is pleaded that there is no privity of contract between complainant and insurance company and prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Learned District Forum ordered insurance company to pay Rs.119260/- (One lac nineteen thousand two hundred and sixty) as assessed by surveyor of insurance company within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Learned District Forum further ordered that in default insurance company would be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint w.e.f. 23.11.2012. Learned District Forum further ordered that in default insurance company would be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint w.e.f. 23.11.2012. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite parties would pay punitive compensation of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) to complainant. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite parties would pay costs to complainant to the tune of Rs.4000/- (Four thousand). 5. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum insurance company filed present appeal before State Commission. 6. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 7. Following points arises for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by the appellants is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 8. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence annexure C-1 placed on record. There is recital in affidavit that deponent purchased second-hand bus No. HP-69A-7719 from previous owner namely Sanjeev Thakur. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant applied for transfer of ownership before registering authority in the month of September 2011. There is further recital in affidavit that transfer of ownership certificate was signed by registering authority on dated 14.10.2011. There is further recital in affidavit that bus No. HP-69A-7719 met with accident on 12.10.2011. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent has paid total consideration amount of Rs.209980/- (Two lac nine thousand nine hundred and eighty) to previous owner and there is further recital in affidavit that deponent also informed representatives of insurance company qua accident and also surveyor of insurance company visited site of accident on 13.10.2011. There is further recital in affidavit that despite submitting all relevant documents to insurance company claim of complainant was repudiated by opposite parties in illegal manner. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. Complainant also filed annexures in evidence. 9. Opposite parties also adduced evidence by way of affidavit. Brij Mohan branch manager of opposite parties filed affidavit by way of evidence. There is recital in affidavit that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. There is recital in affidavit that after getting information regarding accident of bus No. HP-69A-7719 opposite parties deputed an independent surveyor/loss assessor to assess claim. Brij Mohan branch manager of opposite parties filed affidavit by way of evidence. There is recital in affidavit that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. There is recital in affidavit that after getting information regarding accident of bus No. HP-69A-7719 opposite parties deputed an independent surveyor/loss assessor to assess claim. There is further recital in affidavit that surveyor assessed claim to the tune of Rs.119260/- (One lac nineteen thousand two hundred and sixty). There is further recital in affidavit that at the time of accident Bhagat Ram was owner of vehicle. There is further recital in affidavit that insurance policy was issued in the name of previous owner Sanjeev Thakur. There is further recital in affidavit that there was no privity of contract between Bhagat Ram and insurance company relating to insurance policy. There is further recital in affidavit that if compensation is awarded then compensation be awarded as assessed by surveyor or as per IDV whichever is less. 10. Opposite parties also filed affidavit of Deepak Sood surveyor/loss assessor annexure R-2 placed on record. There is recital in affidavit that deponent was deputed by opposite parties to conduct survey and assess loss regarding bus No. HP-69A-7719. There is further recital in affidavit that surveyor conducted survey and assessed loss and submitted report. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent assessed loss to the tune of Rs.119260/- (One lac nineteen thousand two hundred and sixty). 11. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf appellants that at the time of accident complainant was not owner of vehicle as per certificate given by registering authority relating to ownership of vehicle and on this ground appeal be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused certificate of transfer of ownership given by registering authority annexure C-2 placed on record. There is recital in certificate that Bhagat Ram is owner of bus No. HP-69A-7719. There is further recital in affidavit that previous owner of vehicle was Sanjeev Thakur. There is further recital in certificate of transfer of ownership annexure C-2 that certificate was printed on 14.09.2011. Certificate was signed by registering authority on 14.10.2011. It is held that transferee has applied for transfer of ownership as required under section 50(b) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 before registering authority. There is further recital in certificate of transfer of ownership annexure C-2 that certificate was printed on 14.09.2011. Certificate was signed by registering authority on 14.10.2011. It is held that transferee has applied for transfer of ownership as required under section 50(b) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 before registering authority. We are of opinion that relief cannot be denied to complainant simply due to inaction of registering authority. It is proved on record from the perusal of transfer certificate issued by registering authority that certificate of transfer of ownership was printed on 14.09.2011 prior to accident but was not signed by registering authority till 14.10.2011. It is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to deny relief to complainant solely due to inaction of registering authority. 12. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that transferee did not inform to insurance company relating to transfer of vehicle within 14 days as required under section 157(2) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and on this ground appeal be allowed is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Insurance company did not repudiate claim on the ground of non-compliance of provision of section 157(2) of Motor Vehicle Act 1988. It is held that chapter XI of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is applicable to insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks. Present case is not case of third party risks. We have carefully perused terms & conditions of insurance policy issued by opposite parties annexure R-7 placed on record relating to damage of IDV vehicle. There is no condition in insurance policy that insurance company will not be liable to pay insurance amount of vehicle if information of transfer of ownership of vehicle is not given within 14 days. We are of opinion that terms and conditions of insurance policy are binding upon parties and we are also of opinion that parties cannot be allowed to flout terms and conditions of insurance policy placed on record relating to IDV claims of vehicle. See CPR 2016(4) 487 NC Amandeep Kaur v. DLF Universal Ltd. & Ors. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2: Final Order 13. In view of findings upon point No.1 appeal is dismissed. Order of Learned District Forum is affirmed. See CPR 2016(4) 487 NC Amandeep Kaur v. DLF Universal Ltd. & Ors. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2: Final Order 13. In view of findings upon point No.1 appeal is dismissed. Order of Learned District Forum is affirmed. Document annexure R-3 certificate of transfer of ownership issued by registering authority and terms & conditions of insurance policy annexure R-7 placed on record will form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File of learned District Forum along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.