##PAGE1##

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

FIRST APPEAL NO.747 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 18.03.2019 passed in Case.No.286/2015 by

District Commission, Bhopal no.1)

DR.RAKSHA SHRIVASTAVA,

R/O G-41, SIDDHARTH LAKE CITY,

ANAND NAGAR,

BHOPAL. … APPELLANT.

Versus

1. SURJEET HYUNDAI PRIVATE LIMITED,

REGISTERED AND SALES OFFICE –

7 LAPJAT NAGAR, RAISEN ROAD,

BHOPAL.

AND G-27, J.K. ROAD, BHOPAL.

2. SHIVNATH HYUNDAI,

REGISTERED AND SALES OFFICE –

PLOT NO.618/2, NEAR CHIDAMBADA HOTEL,

G.E. ROAD, TELIBAD,

RAIPUR, CHHATISGARH.

3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

PRIVATE LIMITED,

THROUGH OFFICE NO.2,

B-8, INDRAPURI, BHEL,

INFRONT OF JUBLIEE GATE,

BHOPAL. .… RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT.SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT

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

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Sandeep Guru, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for respondents no.1 & 2.

Ms. Preetima Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

-2-

O R D E R

(Passed on .12.2025)

The following order of the Commission was delivered

by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member :

This is an appeal by the complainant / appellant

directed against the order dated 18.03.2019 passed by the District

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal no.1 (for

short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case no.286/2015,

whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint

filed by her.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant had

purchased Hyundai I10 on 13.05.2014 from the opposite party

no.1. She submitted that she had completed all the formalities

regarding registration and life time road tax was also duly paid.

The insurance policy was also issued by the opposite party no.3 -

National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as

‘Insurance Company”) in respect of subject vehicle. It is further

submitted that on 22.05.2014 the subject vehicle met with an

accident regarding which the opposite parties were intimated.

Surveyor was appointed in the matter who prepared an estimate,

but despite fulfillment of requisite formalities the Insurance

Company denied payment of claim amount vide letter dated

09.12.2014 on the ground that the vehicle was registered with the

RTO on 05.06.2014 and therefore was being run in violation of

Section 39, Section 43 alongwith Section 192 of the Motor

Vehicles Act at the material time. She alleged that aforesaid

-3-

amounts to deficiency in service and therefore, filed complaint

case before the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. Opposite party no.1 resisted the complaint and stated

that the complainant had only purchased the vehicle from them

and liability regarding payment of insurance claim lies only with

the Insurance Company.

4. Opposite party no.2 was proceeded ex-parte by the

District Commission.

5. The Insurance Company before the District

Commission submitted that there was delay in intimation to the

Insurance Company regarding alleged accident. It is further

submitted that the subject vehicle got registered on 05.06.2014

and therefore was being run in violation of Section 39/192 and

Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim has therefore,

rightly been denied and it was prayed that the complaint be

dismissed.

6. Heard. Perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant / appellant

argued that the complainant had categorically submitted before

the District Commission that the amount towards insurance and

registration were paid by the complainant to the opposite party

no.1. It was the responsibility of opposite party no.1 to get the

vehicle registered on time. The opposite party no.1 in its reply

also admitted of receiving the amount towards RTO and therefore,

it was their responsibility to get the vehicle registered. When the

-4-

complainant enquired about the same no satisfactory response

was provided by the opposite party no.1, therefore, due to

negligent act of the opposite party no.1 the complainant /

appellant cannot be made to suffer. He further argued that the

Insurance