The absence of valid vehicle registration at the time of theft constitutes a fundamental breach of insurance policy terms.

1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents, as detailed above, under S.21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 11.09.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ˜State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No. 741 of 2013 in which order dated 3.4.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum VI New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as District Forum ) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no 1823 of 2008 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the Order dated 11.9.2017 of the State Commission.

2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP No. 1) was Appellant and the Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent - 1 in the said FA No. 741 of 2013 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP - 1 and Respondent No. 1 was Complainant before the District Commission in the CC No. 1823 of 2008. While the Respondent No. 2 was OP No. 2 before the District Forum (hereinafter also referred to as OP No. 2). Notice was issued to the Respondents on 16.2.2018 Parties filed Written Arguments / Synopsis on 4.7.2023 (Petitioner) and 14.10.2019 (Respondent No. 1).

3. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that Complainant had purchased Chevrolet TAVERA bearing engine No. 3LF - 49097 and chasis No. MAGAB6G766HM48508 on 23.01.2007 from the OP No. 2 on Hire Purchase Agreement through ICICI Bank Ltd which was insured with OP No. 1 for Rs. 6,57,000. The Complainant had paid premium of policy of Rs.19,107 which was effective w.e.f. 23.1.2007 to 22.1.2008.. The said vehicle was handed over to Complainant by OP No. 2 on 23.1.2007. The Complainant alleged that the said vehicle was stolen from the parking lot of the residence of complainant on 22.2.2007. He lodged the report at PS Vivek Vihar and intimation of theft was also given to OP No. 1 / Insurance Company through telephone / letters. However, OP No. 1 repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 11.1.2008 on the ground that vehicle was being driven on the public road without any valid registration at the time of theft and terms and conditions of the policy was not complied with. Complainant also sent legal notice to OP No. 1. Thereafter, Complainant filed a CC before the District Forum which was allowed. vide Order dated 3.9.2013 the CC No. 1823 of 2008 the District Commission has allowed the Complaint and directed that Complainant is entitled to Rs. 6,57,000 along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of claim till its realization and Rs. 25,000 towards compensation for harassment and litigation charges. Aggrieved by the said order, the OP No. 1 filed an appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed vide order dated 11.9.2017. Hence the OP No. 1 is before this Commission now in the present revision petition. IA No. 2202 of 2018 for condonation of delay in filing the RP was allowed.

4. Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 11.9.2017 of the State Commission mainly / inter alia on following grounds:
(i) The order of the State Commission is erroneous and is based on conjunctures and surmises. The State Commission ignored the settled law that non registration of the insured vehicle takes the same beyond the protection of the Insurance Policy.
(ii) The vehicle was not registered on the date of theft and State Commission did not consider the fact that registration of vehicle is mandatory obligation under S.39 of the Motor Vehicle Act and absence of registration of vehicle does not entitle the insured for coverage u