STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MADHYA PRADESH FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/A/19/712 AJAY GUPTA PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O D.P.ROAD,INFRONT OF DR. SUJATA PARMAR, CHANAKYAPURI, SEHORE, TEH. AND DIST.SEHORE.,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus NATIONAL INSU. CO.LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - THRO MANAGER, TEH. CHOURAHA, SEHORE, DIST. SEHORE

466001.,MADHYA PRADESH.

HARIOM AUTO SER.

PRESENT ADDRESS - NEW BUS STAND, SEKDA KHEDI, SEHORE, TEH. AND DIST.

SEHORE. 466001.,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. DR. MONIKA MALIK , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

AJAY GUPTA FOR THE RESPONDENT: NATIONAL INSU. CO.LTD.

DATED: 15/10/2025

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 712 OF 2019 (Arising out of order dated 07.03.2019 passed in C.C.No.320/2017 by District Commission, Sehore)

AJAY GUPTA S/O SHRI RAMAVTAR GUPTA, R/O D.P.ROAD, OPPOSITE DR. SUJATA PARMAR, CHANAKYAPURI, TEHSIL & DISTRICT-SEHORE (M.P.) … APPELLANT.

Versus

1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH MANAGER, TEHSIL CHOURAHA, SEHORE (M.P.)

2. HARIOM AUTO SERVICE STATION THROUGH DEALER NEAR BUS STAND, SAINKDAKHEDI, TEHSIL & DISTRICT-SEHORE (M.P.) ... RESPONDENT.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Ms. Shradha Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the appellant.

Ms. Geeta Handa Khanuja, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

None for the respondent no.2.

O R D E R

(Passed On 15.10.2025)

Per Say Justice Sunita Yadav:

This is an appeal by the complainant/appellant against the order dated

07.03.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sehore (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C. No. 320/2017 whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2. In short, facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a Hero Motorcycle from the opposite party no.2 on 05.06.2017 for a sum of Rs.48,397/-. It is submitted by the complainant that the rest -2-

amount for insurance and registration was given by the complainant to the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 got the vehicle insured from the opposite party no.1-insurance company for the period 05.06.2017 to 04.06.2018. On 27.07.2017 the complainant went to State Bank of India for some personal work. He parked the vehicle in front of bank and locked the same. When he came out from the bank he found that his motorcycle was stolen by some unknown person of which he lodged FIR on 28.07.2017 at Police Station-Kotwali, Sehore and informed the insurance company telephonically and in written. The insurance company appointed surveyor in the matter. The claim filed with the opposite party no.1-insurance company was repudiated by the insurance company on 03.10.2017 on the ground that at the time of incident the subject vehicle was not having registration. It is alleged by the complainant that he deposited the amount for registration on 05.06.2017 itself with the opposite party no.2-dealer who did not get the vehicle registered and the opposite party no.1-insurance company insured the subject vehicle without registration and therefore the complainant alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking claim amount of Rs.55,600/- with compensation of Rs.15,000/- and costs Rs.2,000/-.

3. The opposite party no.1/respondent no.1-insurance company in its reply before the District Commission submitted that the complainant’s motorcycle was insured with the insurance company on the basis of engine number and chassis number. On 05.06.2017 the subject vehicle was not having temporary or permanent registration. The vehicle cannot be plied on road without registration in violation of Section 39 and 43 of Motor Vehicles Act and the same is an offence under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since there was fundamental breach of policy condition therefore the insurance company has right