##PAGE1##

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

FIRST APPEAL NO.2082 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 29.10.2016 passed in Case.No.82/2015 by

District Commission, Sagar)

ASHOK CHOUBEY,

R/O SHRI RAM NAGAR,

OPPOSITE CHETANYA HOSPITAL,

SAGAR. … APPELLANT.

Versus

1. NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY

LIMITED,

THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

AKARSHIYA BUILDING, BHAGWANGANJ,

OPPOSITE RAILWAY STATION,

SAGAR.

2. SUPER AUTOMOBILE LIMITED,

THROUGH THE MANAGER,

21 G, J.K.ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA,

GOVINDPURA,

BHOPAL.

3. ANIL SHARMA,

AUTHORIZED SUB-DEALER,

SUPER AUTOMOBILES LIMITED,

OPPOSITE HOTEL PARADISE, MAKRONIA,

SAGAR. .… RESPONDENTS.

FIRST APPEAL NO.2112 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 29.10.2016 passed in Case.No.82/2015 by

District Commission, Sagar)

NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY

LIMITED,

THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

AKARSHIYA BUILDING, BHAGWANGANJ,

OPPOSITE RAILWAY STATION,

SAGAR. … APPELLANT.

-2-

Versus

1. ASHOK CHOUBEY,

R/O SHRI RAM NAGAR,

OPPOSITE CHETANYA HOSPITAL,

SAGAR.

2. SUPER AUTOMOBILE LIMITED,

THROUGH THE MANAGER,

21 G, J.K.ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA,

GOVINDPURA,

BHOPAL.

3. ANIL SHARMA,

AUTHORIZED SUB-DEALER,

SUPER AUTOMOBILES LIMITED,

OPPOSITE HOTEL PARADISE, MAKRONIA,

SAGAR. .… RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT.SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Anil Samaiya, learned counsel for the complainant.

Shri M.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 –

Insurance Company.

Shri M.Chouksey, learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 & 3.

O R D E R

(Passed on .12.2025)

The following order of the Commission was delivered

by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member :

-3-

Both these appeals arise out of a common order and

are therefore being taken up together. This order will govern

disposal of both the appeals. The complainant has filed appeal

no.2082/2016 for enhancement of the impugned award whereas

the opposite party no.1 has filed appeal no.2112/2016 for setting

aside of the impugned order. Facts of the case are taken from

First Appeal No.2082/2016, unless otherwise stated.

2. This is an appeal by the complainant directed against

the order dated 29.10.2016 passed by the District Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission, Sagar (for short ‘District

Commission’) in complaint case no.82/2015, whereby the District

Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by him.

3. Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant is

the owner of ‘Chevrolet Tavera’ Car bearing engine no.05942

and chassis no.69055 which he had got insured with the opposite

party no.1 – The New India Insurance Company Limited

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) via Private Car

Package Policy commencing from 02.07.2013 to 01.07.2014 for

Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.6,79,250/-. It is submitted

that subject vehicle got stolen on 18.08.2013 when the same was

parked outside the house of the complainant. FIR was lodged

and Insurance Company was also duly intimated. It is alleged

that despite fulfillment of requisite formalities the Insurance

Company denied payment of claim amount, on the ground that

subject vehicle was not registered at the material time.

4. The complainant submitted that since he had paid

registration charges to opposite parties no.2 and 3 / respondents

-4-

no.2 and 3, they were responsible for providing registration of the

subject vehicle. The complainant alleged that on account of

deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties he was not

paid the claim amount. He alleged that the Insurance Company

at the time of insurance knew that the vehicle is unregistered.

Therefore, it is deficiency in service in not paying the claim

amount. The complainant alleging deficiency in service against

opposite parties approached the District Commission, seeking

relief.

5. The Insurance Company resisted the complaint on

the ground that the vehicle was not even temporarily registered

at the material time. Registration charges were deposited on

19.08.2013 and the subject vehicle was stolen on 18.08.2013

and there