The ownership of the vehicle under the Motor Vehicle Act is determined by the records of the Regional Transport Office, and the claimant is entitled to compensation for the loss of the vehicle due to theft.

Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.10.1992 passed by District Consumer Forum, Dehradun in Complaint Case No. 408/1992.

2. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant filed this complaint for recovery of Rs. 1,50,000/- alongwith interest from the date of filing of the complaint. It has been told by the complainant that Vinod Kumar Aggarwal is the Power of Attorney Holder of Sri Tek Chand, the complainant and as such authorised to verify the complaint. The complainant is the owner of truck No. URL 895. This truck was insured with the New India Assurance Company which was effective from 13.3.1988 to 12.3.1989. The risk of theft, house breaking, burglary, etc. were covered. It was further alleged by the complainant that the same struck was stolen on 12.4.1988 for which an FIR was lodged in the Police Station, Fatehpur, Distt. Saharanpur on the same day. The information was also sent to the Insurance Company on the same day. Despite efforts by the police the truck could not be recovered and a final report was submitted on 23.2.1990. The claimant lodged a claim with the Insurance Company on 13.4.1990 for Rs. 1,50,000/- but even after reminders no action was taken for a period of three years. Finally by letter dated 24.5.1991 the claim was repudiated on the ground that at the time of theft the vehicle was not in the employment of the complainant. It was alleged in the repudiation letter that the truck was carrying passengers at the time of incident. A copy of this letter has been filed as Annexure 5 of the complaint. According to the complainant at the time of incident the truck was driven by Jagat Singh who was the driver of the vehicle and had authority and directions of the complainant to do so. The vehicle was passed to carry passengers and even premium was paid for no fare paying passengers. Copy of the letter which was sent by the complainant in reply to the repudiation letter is dated 6.7.1991, which is Annexure 5 to the complaint. When nothing was done by the opposite party, the complainant had to file this complaint because the repudiation was totally illegal and arbitrary. It is further alleged that the complainant limited his claim to Rs. 1,00,000/- even though he is entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-.

3. In the written version filed by the opposite party, it was not admitted the Vinod Kumar Aggarwal is the power of attorney holder of Sri Tek Chand, complainant. It has also been denied that the claim of Rs. 1,50,000/- was lodged with the Insurance Company on 13.4.1988. The delay in repudiation took place on account of non-cooperative attitude of the complainant. As the unauthorised passengers were being carried in the vehicle which caused the loss of the vehicle, hence the Company is not liable. It was further alleged that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount nor 75% of the alleged claim as the violation does not give any right to the complainant to recover this amount.

4. It is further alleged that the vehicle was lost on 13.4.1988 and the cause of action, if any arose on 13.4.1988 and hence the complaint which was filed after more than three years is barred by limitation. It is further alleged that non-fare persons are those who are someway or the other connected with the loading and unloading of the vehicle and not the paid passengers. Under the Motor Vehicle Act, the passengers cannot be carried in a goods vehicle. It is further alleged that the claim is barred as the same was repudiated on 24.4.1992 and the present complaint has been filed after more than one year of repudiation of the claim.

5. It is further alleged that in the investigation it was found that the vehicle was sold to Vinod Kumar Aggarwal and as such the driver and cleaner of the vehicle were employees of Sri Vinod Kumar Aggarwal and as such the claim should be dismissed.

6. Learned District Forum, after considering the claim of the parties, held that th