By that day the New Act had companye into force.
The New Act came into force with effect from lst July, 1989.
The respondent did number respond.
Actually the application dated 26.6.1989 was pending when the New Act had companye into force.
Admittedly the request was number refused under Section 103A of the Old Act till the New Act came into force.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set aside the order of the Commission at Chandigarh, dismissed the companyplaint and granted companyt of the appeal.
On 26.6.1989, the appellant intimated the transfer of registration and asked for transfer of the insurance policy.
CHK 9253 was purchased in the name of Mrs. Archana Wadhwa for which the respondent, M s. New India Assurance Company Ltd., had issued a companyprehensive insurance policy.
Thereafter on 24.7.1989 the Insurance Company was once again requested to effect the transfer of the Certificate of Insurance as well as the policy but to numberavail.
The registration of the car was transferred to the appellant on 15.6.1989.
The National Commission placed reliance on a judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Madinani Kondaiah Ors.
The appellant filed the companyplaint before Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, which directed the respondent to pay Rs.
A reminder was sent on 24.7.1989.
A reminder dated 26.12.1989 met the same fate.
83,000/ i.e. the insured value of the vehicle, as the vehicle was a total loss, along with companyts and interest.
The respondent did number reply to the two letters.
On 17.9.1989 the car met with a serious accident in which the Managing Director of the appellant suffered serious injuries and his sister died.
Since the vehicle in question was sold on 15.6.1989 and the letter of intimation of transfer and request to transfer the Certificate of insurance and the policy described therein was sent on 26.6.1989 the Old Act applied.
On 11.10.1989 the appellant asked for the assessment of the damage as the car was a total loss.
The appellant got a numberice issued to which the respondent replied that the appellant had numberinsurable interest in the car.
The premium for the insurance was paid by the appellant companypany in whose favour the car was transferred.
Hence the appeal.
