Proper registration and adherence to policy terms are crucial for insurance claims.

1. The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under S.21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 against the Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal No. 283/2018 dated 9.4.2018.

2. According to the Petitioner / Complainant, he purchased a tractor on 30.11.2007 from M/s. Guru Automobile, Chandigarh - Nahan Road, Naraingarh for Rs. 3,85,000 and got the same insured vide Policy No. 2004372343100443 having validity from 1.12.2007 to 30.11.2008. On 2.6.2008, while his tractor, loaded with sugarcane crop, reached Main Highway, Opposite Malwa Gramin Bank, Shanbhu, some unknown persons stopped the tractor and wrongly confined the driver. Later when the driver went to see the tractor, it was found missing as it was stolen. Complaint was lodged in Police Post Shanbhu, P.S. Sadar, Rajpura vide DDR No. 21 and the Insurance Company was intimated. The Police investigated the matter after lodging FIR No. 126 dated 11.7.2008 under S.382, S.342/34, IPC. The Petitioner submitted copy of order, FIR, DDR for settlement of claim with Respondents but they demanded original RC and document. Since original documents were delivered to the Police at the time of registration of the case therefore, the RC was yet to be prepared. The IDV of the vehicle was Rs. 4,35,000 but the Respondents has settled the matter for only Rs. 2,75,000 and also obtained consent letter under compelling circumstances. The claim was settled for lesser amount due to non - availability of the registration certificate and due to incomplete documents. The Petitioner requested the Respondents to pay full claim as per IDV but it delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. The Petitioner being the owner of the vehicle in question as per verdict given by Hon'ble Civil Court at Naraingarh dated 14.9.2015 was entitled for the claim arising out of the insured vehicle but the Respondents flatly refused to make the payment thereof. Hence, Complaint was filed by the Petitioner alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents.

3. The Complaint was contested by the Respondent alleging that the claim was not maintainable due to late intimation i.e. after 2 months of loss and due to other violations of the Policy such as non - registration of the vehicle despite elapse of 7 months from the date of purchase. As per S.139 of Motor Vehicles Act , it was necessary to register a vehicle within 30 days of its purchase. It was further contended that DDR was a manipulated document and was contrary to the version of the FIR.

4. The District Forum, vide order dated 8.2.2018 dismissed the Complaint of the Petitioner relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Narinder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others.

5. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission against the order passed by the District Forum. The State Commission vide order dated 9.4.2018, dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner upholding the order passed by the District Forum on the ground that the Petitioner failed to prove deficiency on the part of the Respondents in repudiating the claim.

6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner preferred the present Revision Petition on the following grounds, among others.

7. The State Commission failed to appreciate the fact that vehicle in question was snatched / looted by unknown persons and had not met with an accident. Hence, the case of the Petitioner was fully covered by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as Nidheesh Sharma Bharti v. Axa General Insurance Company, RP No. 67/2015, decided on 14.10.2015.

8. Heard the learned Counsel for the