IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance claim can be repudiated if stolen vehicle was not having valid registration.

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short, ‘Act’) by the Petitioner/Complainant challenging order dated 13.10.2014, passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (for short, ‘State Commission’) in (First Appeal No.305 of 2014).

2. Petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT Chandigarh (for short, ‘District Forum’) against Respondents/Opposite Parties stating that she had purchased Indigo ECS (LX TC 111) vide Invoice dated 9.6.2011. Temporary Registration No.CH-0T 8341 was issued. Petitioner got her vehicle insured with Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 valid from 8.6.2011 to 7.6.2012 after paying the premium of Rs.13,409/-. The copy of policy was supplied to the petitioner. However, no terms and conditions whatsoever were either supplied or explained to the petitioner. On 5.5.2012, husband of petitioner went to Delhi in the car. There parked the car in front of guest house at about 9.45 P.M. and went to sleep. When he got up at around 6.30 A.M, on 6.5.2012 he found that car was missing. He immediately called the Police Control Room, whereupon Police of Police Station Safdarjung Enclave came to the site and registered FIR No.148 dated 6.5.2012, under Section 379 Indian Penal Code. It was stated that intimation about theft was duly given to Respondent No.1, who appointed Mr. Sunl Jain, Investigator, to investigate the claim of the petitioner. All the relevant documents were supplied to the representative of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1, vide letter dated 30.4.2013 repudiated the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the car in question, was not registered with any Registering Authority on the date of theft. It is stated that the aforesaid acts of respondent no.1, amounted to deficiency in rendering service as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When grievance of petitioner was not redressed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed praying for the Insured Declared Value of vehicle in question; Rs.50,000/-, for mental agony, physical harassment, deficiency in rendering service, and unfair trade practice; interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of loss till realization and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.22,000/-.

3. Respondent No.1 in its written reply, admitted that vehicle in question was not insured from it, for the period from 8.6.2011 to 7.6.2012 to the tune of Rs.4,99,235/-. It also admitted that vehicle was stolen on the night intervening 05/06.05.2012, from New Delhi. It is further stated that the temporary registration of the car was valid for only one month i.e. till 8.7.2011. Thereafter, petitioner did not get the vehicle registered with the concerned Registering Authority, which was in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Therefore, the claim of petitioner was legally and validly repudiated by it. Thus, there was no deficiency in rendering the service, on the part of respondent no.1 nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.

4. Respondent No.2 in its written version, admitted the purchase of the vehicle by taking loan for the sum of Rs.4,09,000/- from it. The petitioner after payment of 7 installments defaulted in making payment of the same. Hence, there was no deficiency in rendering service on its part nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.

5. District Forum vide order dated 17.7.2014, allowed the complaint qua respondent no.1 with following directions;

“ i) To pay the IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.4,99,235/- to opposite party No.2 as the vehicle was under hypothecation with it.

ii) To pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to her;

iii) To pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant.”

6. Respondent No.1 filed appeal before the State Commission, which accepted the same and set aside the order of the Di