M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 1582 OF 2023 (Arising out of order dated 24.08.2023 passed in Case.No.434/2022 by District Commission, Gwalior)

SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH MANAGER, ORIEN TOWER, II FLOOR, CITY CENTRE, GWALIOR. .… APPELLANT.

Versus

1. JATAN SHRIVASTAVA, R/O A 208, ANAND NAGAR, BAHODAPUR, GWALIOR.

2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, THROUGH MANAGER MAIN BRANCH MAHARAJ BADA, LASHKAR, GWALIOR. .… RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE DR.SRIKANT PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Sanjeev Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Ashok Mehta, learned counsel for respondent no.1.

Shri Yash Vidhyarthi, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

O R D E R (Passed on .03.2025)

The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member :

This appeal is filed by the opposite party no.1 /

appellant challenging the order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case no 434/2022, whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant / respondent no.1.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the complainant / respondent no.1 is the owner of Hyundai Venue Car bearing registration no.MP07 CH 7967 which was insured the Insurance Company for the insured declared value (IDV) of Rs.9,49,999/-. The complainant / respondent no.1had also obtained loan towards the subject vehicle from the opposite party no.2 / respondent no.2 - State Bank of India for Rs.9,30,000/-. It is submitted that the subject vehicle met with an accident on 2nd day of its purchase i.e. on 23.08.2020 regarding which police and the Insurance Company were intimated. It is alleged that despite fulfillment of requisite formalities his claim was denied. Therefore, the complainant / respondent no.1 alleged deficiency in service against the Insurance Company.

2. The Insurance Company in its reply before the District Commission submitted that on the date of accident the subject vehicle was not registered and was being run in violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore the claim was rightly been denied.

3. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.9,48,999/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 13.04.2022 till payment, towards the loan account of the complainant with the opposite party no.2. The complainant /respondent no.1 is entitled for the amount which is left after re- payment of his loan. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- with costs of Rs.10,000/- is also awarded. Hence, this appeal.

4. Heard. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the District Commission has committed error in passing the impugned order and ignoring the fact that the subject vehicle was not registered with the RTO when it had met with an accident. Since the vehicle was being run in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act the claim is not payable in the instant matter. The fact that the vehicle was unregistered is confirmed from the Rojnamcha, wherein the complainant has submitted that the vehicle is unregistered. There are three registered numbers in the record, one is ‘trade certificate’ number, a different number in the policy and lastly the registration number issued on 29.08.2020. The complainant has deposited road tax on 26.08.2020 and the registration certificate was issued on 29.08.2020. The subject vehicle was not even temporarily registered and was having ‘trade certificate’ only therefore, the claim is not payable. He referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Civil no. 8463/2014 Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors., decided on 04.09.2014 and Appeal No.5887/2021 United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Godara, decided on 30.09.2021

6. Learn