ORDER

M.B. Shah, President - Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 17.1.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna in Appeal No. 535 of 2005, the complainant has preferred this revision petition.

2. By the impugned order, the State Commission has set aside the order dated 1.8.2005 passed by the District Forum, Buxar in Complaint Case No. 27 of 2005 directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 3,89,473 with interest @ 12% per annum and also awarding compensation of Rupees one lakh.

3. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant is serving with the United Bank of India and was working at the relevant time at Allahabad Branch, but at the same time was staying at Buxar. He purchased a Mahindra Max for a sum of Rs. 4,11,797 on 25th July, 2004 from the United Automobiles, Allahabad after taking loan from the United Bank of India, Civil Lines Branch, Allahabad. Immediately after purchase of the vehicle he took insurance cover for the period between 25th July, 2004 to 24th July, 2005 for the vehicle from the United India Insurance Company, Allahabad Branch for a sum of Rs. 3,89,473. The policy was taken for the aforesaid lesser amount as the dealer informed him that as soon as the vehicle goes out of the show room its value is required to be reduced by 5%. On the same day the complainant took the vehicle to Buxar to his residence. It is his contention that the vehicle was not registered because it was Sunday and the vehicle was required to be registered at Buxar as he was resident of Buxar.

4. Unfortunately, at the night time, the vehicle was stolen. Complainant immediately lodged an FIR with Buxar Police Station and the case was registered against unknown persons. Claim was lodged with the Insurance Company. However, to his surprise after a lapse of eight months, the Insurance Company offered Rs. 2,91,000 i.e. approximately 75% of the insured amount with the condition that the complainant should accept it as a full and final settlement of his claim. That was not accepted by the complainant, because, the complainant has taken loan from the Bank and that on the date of the purchase, the vehicle was stolen.

5. As the Insurance Company did not pay the amount, the complainant was required to approach the District Forum. The District Forum as stated above, directed the Insurance Company to pay the full insured value i.e. Rs. 3,89,473 to the insured with interest and with compensation.

6. Against that order the Insurance Company preferred an appeal and the appeal was allowed on the ground that the vehicle was not registered with the RTO and therefore the offer of settlement of the claim on a non-standard basis was just and proper, therefore, there was no deficiency in service by the Insurance Company in settling the claim at a lesser amount.

7. In our view, the impugned order passed by the State Commission cannot be justified, because, under Section 40 of the Motor Vehicles Act, "every owner of the motor vehicle is required to get it registered by a Registering Authority in whose jurisdiction he is residing or the place of business where the vehicle is normally kept". In the present case, it is the say of the complainant that he is the resident of Buxar and therefore after purchase of the vehicle he took the vehicle to Buxar. Unfortunately, as the said date being Sunday and the RTO office was not open he kept the vehicle during the night time at his residence from where theft took place. Further, with regard to obtaining temporary registration also it was not possible for the complainant to get it registered, because, it was not a working day for the offices of RTO. In these set of circumstances, the offer made by the Insurance Company on non-standard basis was not justified.

8. Further, the petitioner who is appearing in person, has pointed out that even the Divisional Office at Allahabad had also recommended that full sum insured after deducting Rs. 1,000 be paid t